integrating metadata creation into catalog workflow

11
This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] On: 07 October 2014, At: 20:27 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20 Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow Maura L. Valentino a a University of Oklahoma , Norman, Oklahoma, USA Published online: 23 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Maura L. Valentino (2010) Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48:6-7, 541-550, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2010.496304 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2010.496304 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: maura-l

Post on 24-Feb-2017

223 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]On: 07 October 2014, At: 20:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cataloging & Classification QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

Integrating Metadata Creation intoCatalog WorkflowMaura L. Valentino aa University of Oklahoma , Norman, Oklahoma, USAPublished online: 23 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Maura L. Valentino (2010) Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow,Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48:6-7, 541-550, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2010.496304

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2010.496304

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48:541–550, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0163-9374 print / 1544-4554 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01639374.2010.496304

Integrating Metadata Creationinto Catalog Workflow

MAURA L. VALENTINOUniversity of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

The University of Oklahoma Libraries recently undertook a projectdesigned to integrate digital library metadata creation into theworkflow of the Cataloging Department. This article examines theconditions and factors that led to the project’s genesis, the proposedand revised workflows that were developed, the staff training effortsthat accompanied implementation of the project, and the resultsand benefits obtained through the project’s implementation. Theproject presented several challenges but resulted in an improvedworkflow, greater use of Cataloging Department resources, andmore accurate and useful metadata while increasing the Library’scapacity to support digitization efforts in a timely fashion.

KEYWORDS metadata, cataloging, library training, library work-flow

INTRODUCTION

During the summer of 2009 the University of Oklahoma Libraries initiated aproject aimed at integrating digital library metadata creation into the work-flow of the Library’s Cataloging Department. After a thorough review of theoverall management of metadata creation relating to existing and in-processdigital libraries, it was determined that the centralization of metadata cre-ation in the Cataloging Department would result in increased consistencyand accuracy in the resulting metadata, and that such a centralization wouldalso improve the ability of library staff to efficiently and effectively managesuch projects.

While library catalogers possess a detailed understanding of metadatacreation as it relates to traditional library operations, such as the creation

Received April 2010; revised May 2010; accepted May 2010.Address correspondence to Maura L. Valentino, Coordinator of Digital Initiatives Librarian,

University of Oklahoma, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

541

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

542 M. L. Valentino

of Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) records, it was determined thatin order to effectively function as a key core component of the digital li-brary metadata workflow, members of the Cataloging Department wouldrequire additional training in digital metadata standards and implementa-tion. In support of this goal, the University of Oklahoma Libraries DigitalInitiatives Department developed and conducted a digital library metadatatraining program specifically tailored to the needs of catalog librarians. Basedon the results of this training, the recommended workflow was modified toreflect the needs and skills of the catalog librarians. This redesigned man-agement and workflow infrastructure was subsequently implemented in anactual digital library project to assess its efficacy.

REVIEW OF EXISTING WORKFLOWS AND STANDARDS

The University of Oklahoma Libraries maintains numerous digital librariesacross a wide range of academic disciplines with additional projects cur-rently in progress or under development. A review of these efforts revealedno standardization of digital library project metadata creation workflows.Metadata creation workflow for each digital library project was developedand implemented on an ad hoc basis by individual academic departmentsor on a project-by-project basis by individual academic departments in con-sultation with the Digital Initiatives Department. As a result, no significantefforts aimed at centralizing and standardizing digital library metadata cre-ation workflows had been implemented.

A review of existing and in-progress digital library projects also deter-mined that no single standard or set of standards existed for the creationof digital library metadata objects. While Dublin Core was used for manyprojects, the fields were interpreted differently for each project and no stan-dards were developed. As individual departments managed the implemen-tation of digital libraries related to their specific fields of study, metadatastandards for each project were developed independently of other digitallibrary efforts. As a result, digital library metadata workflows and standardsvaried widely from project to project with no overall workflow managementor metadata standardization.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Prior to the design and implementation of the revised digital library workflowand metadata standards, a thorough review of relevant literature was con-ducted. The majority of the literature concludes that Cataloging Departmentstaff members already possess a wide variety of knowledge and experiencethat can be effectively transferred to the generation of digital library metadata.For example, catalogers are experienced in applying metadata standards

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow 543

designed to enable the efficient retrieval of objects, such as MARC, and increating metadata, such as catalog records. As Jeanne Boydston and JaneLeyson state, “Metadata creation is an extension of the catalogers’ existingskills, abilities, and knowledge. As such, it should be supported.” Boydsonand Leyson also add, “Catalogers recognize the importance of controlled vo-cabulary and its relationship to keyword searching and information retrieval.They have experience with subject analysis, multiple thesauri, and issues ofhierarchy and granularity.”1 Kevin Butterfield agrees that the catalogers’ skillset including the ability to create standards, vocabularies and classificationsystems is one that can be transferred to metadata creation.2

For such skills to be successfully transferred to digital library metadatacreation, additional training for catalogers is required. Boydston and Leysennote that while catalogers possess a basic skill set that is easily adaptedto digital metadata, training is needed to ensure that catalogers have thetechnical expertise needed to succeed in a digital library environment.3

Some researchers argue, however, that catalogers trained in the useof a rigidly structured set of standards and policies may be uncomfortablewith the more freeform style of metadata that is often used in support ofdigital libraries. Christine DeZelar-Tiedman notes that catalogers are usedto a controlled workflow, and may not be comfortable in one that is lesscontrolled.4

A review of the literature also revealed the following additional rele-vant factors. Jean Hudgins and Lisa Macklin note that catalog staff must beincluded at all phases of the project and their expertise evaluated for whenand how it can be most effectively used.5 DeZelar-Tiedman adds that cata-logers are not seen as metadata experts and encourages them to self promotetheir unique skills.6 Boydston and Leysen recommend that documentationon the process of adding catalogers into the workflow of a digital projectbe developed.7 Ingrid Hsieh-Yee also discusses the challenge of teachingcatalogers to create metadata in an ever-changing technical world.8

In general, a review of the literature reveals that library catalogers havethe skill set necessary to function as an effective asset in the creation ofmetadata for digital library projects, and that cataloging department managerspossess the skills necessary to supervise such efforts to ensure that a highlevel of accuracy and standardization is maintained. Additional training indigital library metadata standards and implementation, however, is requiredfor cataloguers to function most effectively in this new role.

DEVELOPING A MORE EFFECTIVE DIGITAL LIBRARYMETADATA WORKFLOW

Based on the literature review and a series of discussions with stakeholdersincluding library management, library staff members, and affected universitystaff and faculty, a new workflow was designed to enable the Cataloging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

544 M. L. Valentino

Department to assume a more prominent role in the creation of digital li-brary metadata. In an effort to improve the accuracy and standardizationof metadata created for digital library projects, it was determined that Cat-aloging Department faculty should assume the primary role in the creationof digital metadata. In addition, the Cataloging Department would assumean expanded role in the development of metadata standards in consultationwith the Digital Initiatives Department and other project stakeholders. An-other important result of the new workflow would be an increase in theLibraries’ ability to develop and implement digital library projects in a timelymanner by leveraging Cataloging Department resources.

THE NEED FOR TRAINING AND THE DEVELOPMENTOF METADATA STANDARDS

Once the decision was made to implement the new workflow, the need forstaff training was considered. A review of metadata created by the CatalogingDepartment for an existing digital project was conducted to determine thelevel of usefulness and standardization of the metadata. The informationgathered was used as an indicator of the current level of faculty knowledgeand skill in the creation of digital metadata.

Cataloging Department staff had created a set of metadata intendedfor use in the implementation of a digital library containing the HawthornePapers from the Bass Business Collection. The Hawthorne Papers contain136 objects relating to a long-term study of the effects of numerous factorson the productivity of factory workers. This metadata provided a snapshot ofcatalogers’ abilities to furnish standardized and useful metadata in a digitallibrary project environment.

Several deficiencies emerged during the metadata review process. Itwas determined that no metadata scheme had been provided to guide thecatalogers. This resulted in a wide variety of differing metadata being pro-vided, as different catalogers perceived different information as important.For example, some catalogers included the date of the document and othersdid not. A lack of standardization in formatting was also discovered, with awide variety of variations in capitalization and date formats. In general, therewas an overall lack of consistency from one metadata record to another. Inaddition, the metadata records were created in Microsoft Word. As these filescould not be directly imported into the institutional repository system, themetadata records provided by the catalogers would need to be converted toa different format, an unnecessary and time-consuming step.

Based on this review, it was determined that additional training in dig-ital metadata creation would be needed before the Cataloging Departmentcould effectively assume its expanded role in the digital library development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow 545

process. In addition, it emerged that clear metadata and file format standardswould need to be developed for digital library projects, and that catalogerswould need to be trained in the implementation of these standards.

When all of these factors were considered, it was determined that theDigital Initiatives Department, in consultation with relevant stakeholders,would create the standards and provide the necessary training to CatalogingDepartment staff. While commercially available training solutions were con-sidered, none were found that addressed the specific needs of the CatalogingDepartment. Such training often focuses on technical issues or provides alevel of detail not required. Therefore, it was determined that the most pro-ductive approach would be for the Digital Initiatives Department to createa training course specifically geared toward the catalogers who will createthe metadata, but who will not be responsible for any of technical detailsinvolved in implementing the digital library such as associating the metadatawith the correct digital object or making the resulting digital library availableonline.

A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LIBRARY CATALOGERS

To prepare the catalog librarians to assume their expanded role in the digitallibrary metadata workflow, a customized training program was developed.The goal of this training program was to provide the catalog librarians withthe skills necessary to create metadata for the wide variety of digital objectsthey were likely to encounter. In addition, faculty members were to betrained in standardized methods of providing the resulting metadata to theDigital Initiatives Department in a format suitable for efficient importationinto the institutional repository system. The instruction was provided throughfour hours of classroom training delivered in two sessions of two hours inlength. Seventy-five percent of class time was devoted to hands-on exercises,with the remaining twenty-five percent devoted to lecture and discussion.

The course began with a one-hour lecture on the subject of digital meta-data. This lecture began with a basic overview of databases and databasedata and metadata, with simple examples used to illustrate these concepts.An explanation of why metadata is created and how it is used was thenprovided. Examples from the University Libraries collections were used togive the catalogers a point of reference to understand the difference betweencatalog records and metadata records. In addition, the similarities involved increating the two types of records was discussed, in part to demonstrate howthe catalogers’ existing skills would transfer to the creation of digital meta-data and to demonstrate the logic of integrating the Cataloging Departmentinto the digital library creation workflow. Lastly, some of the more tradi-tional subjects in metadata training were briefly addressed. During this finalpart of the lecture period, several original and standard metadata schemes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

546 M. L. Valentino

were discussed. Two unique original schemes were discussed to show thatstandard schemes do not apply to every situation. In addition two standardschemes were presented. The Categories in the Descriptions of Works of Art(CDWA) provided an example of a very detailed scheme. Dublin Core wasthen presented as an example of a basic scheme.

The second hour of training focused on hands-on exercises designedto familiarize catalogers with the basic process of digital metadata creation.Guided exercises gave catalogers the opportunity to create metadata recordsfor existing objects that did not belong to the University of Oklahoma Li-braries. Objects were selected for which information was available on theInternet, but for which a complete metadata record was not easily found.Such objects were used to keep the catalogers focused on basic principlesrather than on specific objects currently in the University Libraries’ collec-tions. A wide variety of objects were chosen, including art objects and localmonuments, so the catalogers could practice developing metadata for manydifferent types of digital objects without the pressure of working with objectsthat would be added to the University Libraries’ digital collections. MicrosoftExcel was used by the catalogers to create the object metadata. Upon theconclusion of the first day’s training, the metadata created by the catalogerswas reviewed by the facilitator to ensure a successful knowledge transfer.

The second day of training consisted of two hours of hands-on guidedexercises. The result of these exercises was the creation of actual metadatafor University-owned objects in a format that could be used by the DigitalInitiatives Department. For the first hour the catalogers concentrated on cre-ating metadata records for works of art displayed in the Bizzell MemorialLibrary, and on creating metadata records for statues and monuments adja-cent to the library building. The second hour of class focused on creatingmetadata records for the History of Science Department’s collection of an-tique scientific instruments, which is currently being developed into a 3Ddigital library. The second day of exercises resulted in metadata properlycreated and formatted for inclusion in ongoing digital library projects.

REDESIGNING PROJECT WORKFLOW BASED ON LESSONSLEARNED IN TRAINING

Based on lessons learned during the training sessions, alterations were madeto the intended workflow. Prior to delivery of the training sessions, the Digi-tal Initiatives Department was tasked with determining the metadata schemefor new projects and with providing the catalogers with an Excel spread-sheet to be used for metadata record creation. This spreadsheet was tocontain detailed instructions for catalogers to use in the creation of metadatarecords. These directions would consist of instructions for each specific field

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow 547

and would include the specific vocabularies to be used, the specific casesto be used (sentence case, title case), as well as instructions on requiredand optional information. It was determined, however, that improved meta-data would result if the Digital Initiatives Department met with the cataloglibrarians before work began. This meeting would be used to review spe-cific directions and to ensure that all standards and instructions were clearlyunderstood.

Another factor that revealed itself during training was the need for out-side expertise in the creation of metadata records for certain type of projects.For example, during training many catalogers lacked the expertise to prop-erly classify certain paintings or to determine to which branch of science acertain instrument belonged. It was determined that the need for such anoutside expert should be considered when the Digital Initiatives Departmentmet with Cataloging Department staff before the creation of metadata wasbegun.

Catalogers raised a final point during training. While they were ableto use the provided Excel spreadsheet during training exercises such a tool,while in common use by database administrators and many digital specialists,was not one with which the catalogers were familiar. In order to help tostandardize the workflow used by catalogers creating traditional records andthose creating digital library metadata records, an Excel form will be createdto serve as a front end for metadata entry. This form will be constructed toresemble the form currently used by the Cataloging Department to createtraditional records.

TESTING THE REDESIGNED WORKFLOW

Once the training was completed and the new workflow designed, a testproject was implemented to assess the effectiveness of the training and thenew workflow. The selected project involved the creation of a digital librarybased on the Taylor Bulletin, a business management newsletter from theearly twentieth century. The articles contained in these newsletters are ofinterest to researchers in the history of business.

The objects for this collection consist of copies of the newsletter con-tained on microfilm. The newsletters are organized by volume, issue, andarticle. There are several volumes in the collection and each volume con-tains multiple issues. Each issue is comprised of multiple articles. Metadatawas to be provided at the volume, issue, and article level. The Digital Ini-tiatives Department scanned the microfilm and created separate digital ob-jects for each volume. The Digital Initiatives Department then created asimple metadata scheme consisting of: volume and issue, date, keywords,Library of Congress subject headings, article title (repeatable), and articleauthor (repeatable). Once this scheme was established, the Digital Initiatives

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

548 M. L. Valentino

Department created a spreadsheet to be used for data entry and provided acomplete set of sample records for the first volume, first issue.

The Digital Initiatives Department staff then met with the catalogers par-ticipating in the project and with the Head of the Cataloging Department.The project and the spreadsheet were explained as well as the reasoningbehind the decisions made in developing the scheme and standards. It wasdetermined a subject expert was not necessary on this project, as the ob-jects were articles that could be read to determine the required information.This led to concerns that the timeline for the project would be difficult tomeet if each article had to be read in its entirety. After further discussion,however, it was determined that reading the first one or two paragraphs ofeach article would be sufficient for the creation of the required metadata.Therefore, a two-week deadline was set for the creation of the metadatarecords.

Based on this preliminary work, the catalogers were able to work ef-fectively and independently. As minor issues developed, such as questionson spacing, repeated articles, or the use of certain antiquated terms, sim-ple e-mail communications between the catalogers and the Digital InitiativeDepartment easily resolved these issues. Through these communications theDigital Initiatives Department confirmed the correct use of spacing in theexamples, decided it was unnecessary to create metadata for repeated arti-cles, and determined that antiquated terms should be used as keywords aswell as their modern equivalents. In this way, these issues were addressedin real time, causing no delay in the project timeline and resulting in no sig-nificant issues with the resulting metadata. Upon completion of the project,the Cataloging Department delivered metadata in a format that enabled theDigital Initiatives Department to input the metadata provided by the cata-logers directly into the institutional repository system with no refactoring orreformatting required.

An example of the efficacy of using experienced catalogers for the cre-ation of digital metadata occurred during the test project. Based on theirexperience with traditional cataloging techniques, the catalogers suggestedthat while the authors’ names were being entered into the digital collectionexactly as they were contained in the newsletter, it would be a good ideato also add the names in the proper format from a naming authority. Thiswould enable researchers to determine if the author of the article was thesame person as someone they had come across in another research con-text. This example demonstrates how skills developed in years of catalogingexperience can have a positive impact on digital library projects.

In conclusion, the project deadline of two weeks was met and usefulmetadata was provided at the conclusion of the project. The test projectwas a complete success, and demonstrated the effectiveness of the trainingsessions and new workflow.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow 549

CONCLUSION

The involvement of cataloging departments in the creation of digital librarymetadata is a growing and important trend. By leveraging the existing skillset of experienced cataloging professionals, university libraries can developdigital collections that more effectively meet the needs of researchers and thepublic. The use of Cataloging Department staff in the creation of metadatafor digital projects frees dedicated digital library staff to focus on mattersof design, implementation, and maintenance. This project has demonstratedthat through the use of redesigned workflows, agreed-on metadata stan-dards, customized training for cataloging department staff, and improvedcommunications between the Cataloging Department and those tasked withimplementing digital libraries, the University of Oklahoma Libraries has beenable to improve the quality and efficiency of its digitization efforts while in-creasing access to these valuable resources.

NOTES

1. Jeanne M. K. Boydston and Joan M. Leysen, “Observations on the Catalogers’ Role in DescriptiveMetadata Creation in Academic Libraries,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2006).

2. Kevin L. Butterfield, “Catalogers and the Creation of Metadata Systems: A Collaborative Vi-sion at the University of Michigan,” OCLC Internet Cataloging Project Colloquium Position Paper.http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/au/oclc/man/colloq/butter.htm

3. Boydston and Leysen, “Observations on the Catalogers’ Role in Descriptive Metadata Creationin Academic Libraries.”

4. Christine DeZelar-Tiedman. “Crashing the Party: Catalogers as Digital Librarians,” OCLC Systemsand Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 20, no. 4 (2004): 145–147.

5. Jean Hudgins and Lisa A. Macklin, “New Materials, New Processes: Implementing Digital Imag-ing Projects into Existing Workflow.” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 24 (2000):189–204.

6. DeZelar-Tiedman, “Crashing the Party.”7. Boydston and Leysen, “Observations on the Catalogers’ Role in Descriptive Metadata Creation

in Academic Libraries.”8. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, “Educating Cataloging Professionals in a Changing Information Environment,”

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49 (2008).

APPENDIX: COURSE SCHEDULE FOR METADATA TRAININGFOR CATALOGERS

Day 1:9:00–10:00 amDiscussion of metadata including: Definition of a database, definition of

metadata, definition of a metadata scheme, discussion of Dublin Core andCategories of the Description of Works of Art, differences and similaritiesbetween cataloging (MARC) and creating metadata, and a review of Exceland why it is used.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: Integrating Metadata Creation into Catalog Workflow

550 M. L. Valentino

10:00–11:00 amFacilitated creation of Dublin Core metadata records for art objects (not

owned or associated with the University of Oklahoma) previously deter-mined to have no complete metadata record easily available on the Web.

Day 2:9:00–10:00 amFacilitated creation of Dublin Core metadata records for the art objects

in the library.

10:00–11:00 amFacilitated creation of Dublin Core metadata records for antique scien-

tific objects from the History of Science Collection using existing catalogrecords.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 20:

27 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014