application profiles decisions for your digital collections
DESCRIPTION
Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections. Expectations. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Application ProfilesDecisions for Your Digital
Collections
Expectations
ldquoMetadata is expected to follow existing and emerging standards in order to facilitate integrated access to multiple information providers over the web However there are many new standards and most of them are still under development
Standards landscape
The plot thickens
And it is rare that the requirements of a particular project or site can all be met by any one standard ldquostraight from the boxrdquo
and there are no easy answers
The not-so-easy answer
bull Metadata application profiles
bull Tailor complex schemas for project-specific usage
bull Collaborate with all project stakeholders
schemascontent
standards
authoritiesvocabularies
metadataapplication
profiles
tgm lcsh local w3cdtf
lcnaf
tei mods
mets mix
ead marc
dc local premis
dacs aacr2 local cco
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Expectations
ldquoMetadata is expected to follow existing and emerging standards in order to facilitate integrated access to multiple information providers over the web However there are many new standards and most of them are still under development
Standards landscape
The plot thickens
And it is rare that the requirements of a particular project or site can all be met by any one standard ldquostraight from the boxrdquo
and there are no easy answers
The not-so-easy answer
bull Metadata application profiles
bull Tailor complex schemas for project-specific usage
bull Collaborate with all project stakeholders
schemascontent
standards
authoritiesvocabularies
metadataapplication
profiles
tgm lcsh local w3cdtf
lcnaf
tei mods
mets mix
ead marc
dc local premis
dacs aacr2 local cco
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Standards landscape
The plot thickens
And it is rare that the requirements of a particular project or site can all be met by any one standard ldquostraight from the boxrdquo
and there are no easy answers
The not-so-easy answer
bull Metadata application profiles
bull Tailor complex schemas for project-specific usage
bull Collaborate with all project stakeholders
schemascontent
standards
authoritiesvocabularies
metadataapplication
profiles
tgm lcsh local w3cdtf
lcnaf
tei mods
mets mix
ead marc
dc local premis
dacs aacr2 local cco
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
The plot thickens
And it is rare that the requirements of a particular project or site can all be met by any one standard ldquostraight from the boxrdquo
and there are no easy answers
The not-so-easy answer
bull Metadata application profiles
bull Tailor complex schemas for project-specific usage
bull Collaborate with all project stakeholders
schemascontent
standards
authoritiesvocabularies
metadataapplication
profiles
tgm lcsh local w3cdtf
lcnaf
tei mods
mets mix
ead marc
dc local premis
dacs aacr2 local cco
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
The not-so-easy answer
bull Metadata application profiles
bull Tailor complex schemas for project-specific usage
bull Collaborate with all project stakeholders
schemascontent
standards
authoritiesvocabularies
metadataapplication
profiles
tgm lcsh local w3cdtf
lcnaf
tei mods
mets mix
ead marc
dc local premis
dacs aacr2 local cco
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
schemascontent
standards
authoritiesvocabularies
metadataapplication
profiles
tgm lcsh local w3cdtf
lcnaf
tei mods
mets mix
ead marc
dc local premis
dacs aacr2 local cco
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Application profiles Basic Definition
schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces combined together by implementers and optimized for a particular local application
-- Heery R and Patel M Application profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas Ariadne 25 Sept 24 2000 httpwwwariadneacukissue25app-profilesintrohtml
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Application Profile
Records
Records
Schema A
Schema B
Schema C
Schema ASchema A
Schema BSchema B
Schema CSchema C
Application Profile
RecordsRecords
RecordsRecords
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Example
Australia Government Locator Service ManualhttpwwwegovvicgovaupdfsAGLSmanualpdf
Title Identifier CreatorDate Publisher ContributorLanguage Subject DescriptionType Format CoverageSource Relation RightsAvailability FunctionAudience Mandate
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Basic Definition (cont)
An application profile is an assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
-- Duval E et al Metadata Principles and Practicalities
D-Lib Magazine April 2002httpwwwdliborgdlibapril02weibel04weibelhtml
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Profile features
bull Selection of applicable elements sub-elements and attributes
bull Interpretation of element usagebull Element constraints
ndash Mandatory optional or recommendedndash Repeatable or non-repeatable
bull If repeatable maximum no of occurrences
ndash Fixed or open valuesndash Authority controlled or not
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Designing of Application Profiles
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespacebull Select elements from other metadata
name spacesbull Define local metadata elementsbull Enforcement of applications of the
elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and dependency specification
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
bull Select ldquobaserdquo metadata namespace
bull Select elements from other metadata name spaces
bull Define local metadata elements
bull Enforcement of applications of the elementsndash Cardinality enforcementndash Value Space Restrictionndash Relationship and
dependency specification
bull -- Dublin Corebull --13 elements (no source
no relation)bull --thesisdegree
bull -- some changed from ldquooptional to ldquomandatoryrdquo
bull -- recommended default value in addition to DCrsquos
bull -- new refinement terms
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
DC-Lib
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following
bull required elements bull permitted Dublin Core elements bull permitted Dublin Core qualifiers bull permitted schemes and values (eg use of a specific controlled
vocabulary or encoding scheme) bull library domain elements used from another namespace bull additional elementsqualifiers from other application profiles that
may be used (eg DC-Education Audience) bull refinement of standard definitions
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
The DC-Library Application Profile uses terms from two namespaces
bull DCMI Metadata Terms [httpdublincoreorgdocumentsdcmi-terms]
bull MODS elements used in DC-Lib application profile [httpwwwlocgovmods]
bull The Usage Board has decided that any encoding scheme that has a URI defined in a non-DCMI namespace may be used
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
If an implementor wishes to create new elements that do not exist elsewhere then (under this model) they must create their own namespace schema and take responsibility for declaring and maintaining that schema
Heery and Patel (2000)
Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines [CEN 2003] also includes instructions on Identifying terms with appropriate precision (Section 3) and Declaring new elements (Section 57)
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Creating Metadata Records
bull The ldquoLibrary Modelrdquondash Trained catalogers one-at-a-time metadata records
bull The ldquoSubmission Modelrdquondash Creators (agents) create metadata when submitting
resources
bull The ldquoAutomated Modelrdquondash Automated tools create metadata for resources
bull ldquoCombination Approachesrdquo
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
The Library Model
bull Records created ldquoby handrdquo one at a time
bull Shared documentation and content standards (AACR2 etc)
bull Efficiencies achieved by sharing information on commonly held resources
bull Not easily extended past the granularity assumptions in current practice
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
The Submission Model
bull Based on creator or user generated metadata
bull Can be wildly inconsistentndash Submitters generally untrainedndash May be expert in one area clueless in others
bull Often requires editing support for usability
bull Inexpensive may not be satisfactory as an only option
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
The Automated Model
bull Based largely on text analysis doesnrsquot usually extend well to non-text or low-text
bull Requires development of appropriate evaluation and editing processes
bull Still largely research few large successful production examples yet
bull Can be done in batchbull Also works for technical as well as
descriptive metadata
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull ldquoStoragerdquo related to the relationships between metadata and content
bull These relationships affect how access to the information is accomplished and how the metadata either helps or hinders the process (or is irrelevant to it)
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
bull Content with metadata
bull Metadata only
bull Service only
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Content with metadata
bull Examplesndash HTML pages with embedded lsquometarsquo tagsndash Most content management systems (though
they may store only technical or structural metadata
ndash Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
bull Often difficult to update
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata only
bull Library catalogsndash Web-based catalogs often provide some
services for digital content
bull Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS)ndash Provide metadata records for title level only
bull Metadata aggregationsndash Using OAI-PMH for harvest and re-distribution
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Service only
bull Often supported partially or fully by metadatandash Google Yahoo (and others)
bull Sometimes provide both search services and distributed search software
ndash Electronic journals (article level)bull Linked using ldquolink resolversrdquo or available
independently from websitesbull Have metadata behind their services but donrsquot
generally distribute it separately
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Common Retrieval Models
bull Library catalogsndash Based on a consensus that granular metadata
is useful
bull Web-based (ldquoAmazooglerdquo)ndash Based primarily on full-text searching and link-
or usage-based relevance ranking
bull Portals and federationsndash Service provider model
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull Who will be using the collection
bull Who is the collection cataloger (aka metadata creator)
bull How much timemoney do you have
bull How will your collection be accessed
bull How is your collection related to other collections
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
bull What is the scope of your collection
bull Will your metadata be harvested
bull Do you want your collection to work with other collections
bull How much maintenance and quality control do you wish
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull 1 Considering metadata in a larger project setting
bull Organization-wide collaborativendash Libraryndash Special collectionsndash Archivesndash Academic departments business departments
bull State-wide collaborative projects ndash Eg Ohio Memory
bull Nation-wide projectsndash Eg American Memory
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Decisions for Your Digital Collection
bull Similar or related disciplines ndash Eg architecture projects art projects
bull Similar or related mediandash Eg multimedia database image galleries
visual resources repositories manuscript collections company procedure documents hellip
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Principles to be considered
bull Interoperabilityndash Your data can be integrated into a larger
projectndash Your data structure allows others to join you
bull Metadata reusendash Existing MARC or EAD records can be
reused
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Principles to be considered
bull Simplicity
bull High quality original datandash Ensure best quality ndash One-time project vs ongoing projects ndash
considering long life Few revision chances in the future
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
2 Knowing the difference
bull ldquoObjectwork vs reproduction
bull Textual vs non-textual resources
bull Document-like vs non-document-like objects
bull Collection-level vs item-level
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
How to describe hellip
bull Describe what
bull The image itself Or
bull The building
bull The building as a building Or
bull A building which has a historical importance
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Work vs Image
bull A work is a physical entity that exists has existed at some time in the past or that could exist in the future
bull An image is a visual representation of a work It can exist in photomechanical photographic and digital formats
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Work vs Image
bull A digital collection needs to decide what is the entity of their collectionndash worksndash images orndash bothndash How many metadata records are needed for each
entity
bull Some part of the data can be reusedndash Eg one work has different images or different
formats
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Document-like vs non-document-like
Each object usually has the following characteristics
being in three dimensions having multiple components carrying information about history culture
and society and demonstrating in detail about style
pattern material color technique etc
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Textual vs Non-textualbull Text
ndash Would allow for full text searching or automatic extraction of keywords
ndash Marked by HTML or XML tags ndash Tags have semantic meanings
bull Non-textual eg imagesndash Only the captions file names
can be searched not the image itself
ndash Need transcribing or interpreting
ndash Need more detailed metadata to describe its contents
ndash Need knowledge to give a deeper interpretation
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Determining What Metadata is Needed
Who are your users (current as well as potential) (eg library or registrarial staff curators professors advanced researchers students general public non-native English speakers)
What information do you already have (even if itrsquos only on index cards or in paper files)
What information is already in automated form What metadata categories are you currently using
Are they adequate for all potential uses and users Do they map to any standard
What is an adequate ldquocorerdquo record Is your data clean and consistent enough to migrate
(You may consider re-keying in some cases)
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull First Step Select and Use Appropriate Metadata Elements ndash Data Structure Standards (aka metadata standards)ndash Elements describing the structure of metadata
records What elements should a record includendash Meant to be customized according to institutional
needsndash MARC EAD MODS Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core
are examples of data structure standards
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
A Typology of Data Standards
Data structure standards (metadata element sets)MARC EAD Dublin Core CDWA VRA Core TEI
Data value standards (vocabularies)LCSH LCNAF TGM AAT ULAN TGN ICONCLASS
Data content standards (cataloging rules)AACR (RDA) ISBD CCO DACS
Data formattechnical interchange standards (metadata standards expressed in machine-readable form)MARC MARCXML MODS EAD CDWA Lite XML
Dublin Core Simple XML schema VRA Core 40 XML schema TEI XML DTD
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Second Step Select and Use Vocabularies Thesauri amp local authority files ndash Data Value Standardsndash Data values are used to ldquopopulaterdquo or fill metadata
elementsndash Examples are LSCH AAT TGM MeSH ICONCLASS
etc as well as collection-specific thesauri amp controlled lists
ndash Used as controlled vocabularies or authorities to assist with documentation and cataloging
ndash Used as research tools ndash vocabularies contain rich information and contextual knowledge
ndash Used as search assistants in database retrieval systems or with online collections
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Third Step Follow Guidelines for Documentationndash Data Content Standardsndash Best practices for documentation (ie
implementing data structure and data value standards)
ndash Rules for the selection organization and formatting of content
ndash AACR (Anglo American Cataloguing Rules) CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) DACS (Describing Archives A Content Standard) local cataloging rules
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Data Standards Essential Steps
bull Fourth Step bull Select the Appropriate Format for
ExpressingPublishing Datandash DATA FORMAT STANDARDSndash How will you ldquopublishrdquo and share your data in
electronic formndash How will service providers obtain add value to
and disseminate your datandash Some candidates are Dublin Core XML MARC21
MARC XML CDWA Lite XML schema MODS etc
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata for the Web
bull The Web is not a ldquolibraryrdquobull Web searching is abysmalbull Some (primitive) Web metadata exists
but few implement with consistencybull TITLE html tagbull DESCRIPTION meta tagbull KEYWORDS meta tagbull ldquoNo index no followrdquo meta tag
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
bull End-users tend to employ broader more generic terms than catalogers (ldquofolk classificationrdquo)
bull Indexers must try to anticipate what terms users who typically have ldquoinformation gapsrdquo would use to find the item in hand
bull Users shouldnrsquot be required to input the ldquorightrdquo term
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Speaking of the Web
bull Are your collections ldquoreachablerdquo by commercial search engines (Visible Web vs Deep Web)
bull If yes how will you ldquocontextualizerdquo individual collection objects
bull If not what is your strategy to lead Web users to your search page
bull Contributing to union catalogs (via metadata harvesting etc) will provide greater exposure for your collections
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
The Google Factor
bull What Google looks atndash title tagndash text on the Web pagendash referring links
bull What Google doesnrsquot look at (usually)ndash Keywords meta tagndash Description meta tag
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search
engines work
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Good Metadata hellip
hellipfacilitates data mapping rationalization amp harmonization and thus makes interoperability (federated searching cross-collection searching) possible and possibly understandable
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Metadata creation is one of the core activities of collecting and memory institutions
bull Metadata creation is an incremental process and should be a shared responsibility
bull Metadata rules and processes must be enforced in all appropriate units of an institution
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Adequate carefully thought-out staffing levels including appropriate skill sets are essential for the successful implementation of a cohesive comprehensive metadata strategy
bull Institutions must build heritability of metadata into core information systems
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull There is no one-size-fits-all metadata schema or controlled vocabulary or data content (cataloging) standard
bull Institutions must streamline metadata production and replace manual methods of metadata creation with industrial production methods wherever possible and appropriate
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
bull Institutions should make the creation of shareable re-purposable metadata a routine part of their work flow
bull Research and documentation of rights metadata must be an integral part of an institutions metadata workflow
bull A high-level understanding of the importance of metadata and buy-in from upper management are essential for the successful implementation of a metadata strategy
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 1 Good metadata conforms to community standards in a way that is appropriate to the materials in the collection users of the collection and current and potential future uses of the collection
bull Metadata Principle 2 Good metadata supports interoperability
bull Metadata Principle 3 Good metadata uses authority control and content standards to describe objects and collocate related objects
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata Principles
bull Metadata Principle 4 Good metadata includes a clear statement of the conditions and terms of use for the digital object
bull Metadata Principle 5 Good metadata supports the long-term management curation and preservation of objects in collections
bull Metadata Principle 6 Good metadata records are objects themselves and therefore should have the qualities of good objects including authority authenticity archivability persistence and unique identification
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata
bull ldquoMetadatardquomdashwhich in many ways can be seen as a late 20th-early 21st-century synonym for ldquocatalogingrdquomdashis seen as an increasingly important (albeit frequently sloppy and often confounding) aspect of the explosion of information available in electronic form and of individualsrsquo and institutionsrsquo attempts to provide online access to their collections
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata for enhancedaccess
bull Librarians archivists and museum documentation specialists can and should make metadata creation into a viable effective tool for enhancing access to the myriad resources that are now available in electronic form The judicious carefully considered combination of various standards can facilitate this Mixing and matching 1048714A recent trend in metadata creation is ldquoschemaagnosticrdquo metadata
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Description as a collaborativeprocess
bull Description (aka cataloging) should be seen as a collaborative incremental process rather than an activity that takes place exclusively in a single department within an institution (in libraries this has traditionally been the technical services department)
bull Metadata creation in the age of digital resources can and indeed should in many cases be a collaborative effort in which a variety of metadatamdashtechnical descriptive administrative rights-related and so on) is added incrementally by trained staff in a variety of departments including but not limited to the registrarrsquos office digital imaging and digital asset management units processing and cataloging units and conservation and curatorial departments
bull What about ldquoexpert social taggingrdquo
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
What will it take
bull Technical infrastructure and tools
bull ldquoBehavioralculturalrdquo and organizational changes
bull Hard work and a more production oriented approach (more efficient workflows decision trees use of quotas etc)
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
ldquoSchema-agnosticrdquo metadata Metadata that is both shareable and re-purposable Harvestable metadata (OAIPMH) ldquoNon-exclusiverdquordquocross-culturalrdquo metadatamdashie itrsquos okay
to combine standards from different metadata communitiesmdasheg MARC and CCO DACS and AACR DACS and CCO EAD and CDWA Lite etc
Importance of controlled vocabularies amp authoritiesmdashand difficulties in ldquobringing alongrdquo the power of vocabularies in a shared metadata environment
The need for practical economically feasible approaches to metadata creation
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
bull Collaboration not isolationbull Metadata librarians donrsquot catalogbull Emphasis on the collection not the ldquoitem in
handrdquo bull Sometimes ldquogood enoughrdquo is good enough
ndash Collection sizendash Uniquenessndash Online access
bull No more monolithsbull LCSH off with its head
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
Metadata Good Practices
bull Adherence to standardsbull Planning for persistence and maintenancebull Documentation
ndash Guidelines expressing community consensusndash Specific practices and interpretationndash Vocabulary usagendash Application profiles
bull Without good metadata and good practices interoperability will not work
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-
- Application Profiles Decisions for Your Digital Collections
- Expectations
- Standards landscape
- Slide 4
- The plot thickens
- The not-so-easy answer
- Slide 7
- Application profiles Basic Definition
- Slide 9
- Example
- Slide 11
- Slide 12
- Basic Definition (cont)
- Profile features
- Designing of Application Profiles
- Slide 16
- Slide 17
- DC-Lib
- hellip use terms from multiple namespaces
- Can an AP declare new metadata terms (elements and refinements) and definitions
- Slide 21
- Creating Metadata Records
- The Library Model
- The Submission Model
- The Automated Model
- Content ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Common ldquoStoragerdquo Models
- Content with metadata
- Metadata only
- Service only
- Common Retrieval Models
- Nine Questions to Guide You in Choosing a Metadata Schema
- Slide 33
- Decisions for Your Digital Collection
- Slide 35
- Principles to be considered
- Slide 37
- 2 Knowing the difference
- Slide 39
- How to describe hellip
- Work vs Image
- Slide 42
- Document-like vs non-document-like
- Textual vs Non-textual
- Determining What Metadata is Needed
- Data Standards Essential Steps
- A Typology of Data Standards
- Slide 48
- Slide 49
- Slide 50
- Metadata for the Web
- ldquoIndexing for the Internetrdquo
- Speaking of the Web
- Slide 54
- The Google Factor
- searchenginewatchcom provides information on how commercial search engines work
- Good Metadata hellip
- Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance
- Slide 59
- Slide 60
- Slide 61
- Metadata Principles
- Slide 63
- Metadata
- Metadata for enhanced access
- Description as a collaborative process
- What will it take
- Some Emerging Trends in Metadata Creation
- Metadata Librarians aka Catalogers
- Metadata Good Practices
- Slide 71
- Slide 72
- Slide 73
-