This article was downloaded by: [University of Louisville]On: 19 December 2014, At: 20:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Library MetadataPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjlm20

Metadata in Archival and CulturalHeritage Settings: A Review of theLiteratureJulia Skinnera

a Florida State University School of Library and Information Studies,Tallahassee, Florida, USAPublished online: 09 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Julia Skinner (2014) Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings: A Reviewof the Literature, Journal of Library Metadata, 14:1, 52-68, DOI: 10.1080/19386389.2014.891892

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2014.891892

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

Journal of Library Metadata, 14:52–68, 2014Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1938-6389 print / 1937-5034 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19386389.2014.891892

Metadata in Archival and Cultural HeritageSettings: A Review of the Literature

JULIA SKINNERFlorida State University School of Library and Information Studies, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

This article provides an overview of the literature related to meta-data in the context of archives and museums. This article hasseveral goals: to outline current practices, theories, and models; todiscuss existing metadata schemas; and to identify theoretical mod-els that apply to metadata schema design in this context. The articlealso explores best practices and identifies gaps in the literature; itoffers suggestions for future research on metadata in archives andcultural heritage institutions.

KEYWORDS archival metadata, archives, cultural heritage,literature review, museums

Cultural heritage institutions are the stewards of a dizzying array of digitaland tangible artifacts. Effectively describing these items and sharing thosedescriptions across institutions are two major challenges these organiza-tions face. One role of metadata standards is to increase the interoper-ability of metadata created at individual institutions, which fosters sharingof records. This article explores how those standards are guided by theo-ries and methods and describes the current state of metadata standards incultural heritage institutions. While there are a variety of cultural heritageinstitutions that could be included, this article focuses only on archives andmuseums.1

A variety of metadata standards and practices can be found in culturalheritage spaces, offering a wealth of diverse literature from a variety of view-points, as well as the opportunity for exciting future study. Elings and Waibel(2007) divided the description of metadata into five key concepts: data fieldsand structure (elements or categories waiting to be filled by the specific

© Julia SkinnerAddress correspondence to Julia Skinner, Doctoral Candidate, Florida State University

School of Library and Information Studies, 600 W. College Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.E-mail: Js11j@my.fsu.edu

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 53

information related to a work); data content and values (the information thatfills those elements and categories, which is guided by standards that tellthe content creator what terms to use); data format (deals with the encodingof the information); eXtensible Markup Language (XML; is most common incultural heritage settings); and data exchange (the protocol used to share acollection of multiple records). Based upon their work, this article focuseson these five key concepts within Encoded Archival Description (EAD), Cat-egories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), and Cataloging CulturalObjects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works (CCO). The article also dis-cusses other standards in the literature, the role of theory and method inmetadata research, and future research directions.

STANDARDS USED IN CULTURAL HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTS

The Development of Cultural Heritage Standards

The tools that can be related to each of these four concepts vary across dif-ferent types of institutions. Archives, unlike libraries, have historically reliedupon locally created finding aids that were not shared across institutions andthat described materials that did not exist anywhere else. Archival profes-sionals created their own content standard, Archives, Personal Papers, andManuscripts (APPM), to account for their unique needs. Later, EAD was de-veloped as networked computing became more common. EAD came to bepreferred over other standards, like APPM and Anglo-American CatalogingRules (AACR), both of which are tied to the machine-readable cataloging(MARC) format (Elings & Waibel, 2007).

The history of metadata in museums also evolved as technologychanged. The CDWA was the first attempt at a data structure specificallycreated for art objects, and it is still used in art museums. However, theneed for smaller element sets that could be shared across systems causedthe museum community to consider other alternatives. These included CCO,which provided guidance for how to structure elements and encouraged theuse of common data values from controlled vocabularies. CDWA Lite wasalso introduced and included fewer categories than its predecessor while stillrelying on the widely adopted CDWA framework. CDWA Lite was promotedto facilitate easier sharing between institutions (Elings & Waibel, 2007). Avariety of other standards have been used as well, as described later in thisarticle.

Encoded Archival Description (EAD)

EAD was developed by the archival community and consists of a set of dataelements selected by archival professionals to create digital representationsof finding aids, which provide an overview of an archival collection within a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

54 J. Skinner

single document (McCrory & Russell, 2005; Smith, 2008; White, 2002).2 Thetechnology underlying EAD is standard generalized markup language andXML. EAD is the main international standard for encoding such documentsin XML (McCrory & Russell, 2005). Although EAD has risen to prominence,Yakel and Kim’s 2005 study found that diffusion was slow, with only 42% oftheir survey respondents utilizing it in descriptive programs at that time.3

EAD was mainly developed to move the finding aid model into anonline environment. Much of the work has focused on implementation anduser behavior (Wisser & Dean, 2013), although articles on other aspects ofEAD have been published as well. Early work on the subject (Meissner, 1997)encouraged repositories to use the implementation of EAD as an opportunityto reengineer their finding aids, instead of simply dragging and droppingexisting finding aids into a system without thoughtful analysis. Early articleson EAD (Bouche, 1997; Dow, 1997; Hensen, 1997; Kiesling, 1997; Lacy &Mitchell, 1997; Morris, 1997; Pitti, 1997) found it promising, even when theauthors tackled previously unanswered questions or located issues associatedwith implementation. More recent articles (e.g., Prom, 2001; Wisser & Dean,2013) found EAD to be continuously useful in the archival setting, althoughall encouraged ongoing evaluation and retooling as needed.

EAD does not dictate how to fill data elements, meaning that institu-tions can draw from a variety of data structures (e.g., Dublin Core, CDWA)depending on their needs (White, 2002). The structure of EAD is hierarchi-cal, with subelements nested within higher-order elements (Thurman, 2005).Cornish (2004) argued that using native XML technology would make it eas-ier to migrate records in the future and overall it has more benefits whencompared to other approaches (e.g., TextML).

Roel (2005) described collaborative work using the Open Archives Initia-tive Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). It works with any metadataexpressed by XML, including EAD, and allows contributors “with minimalmetadata-encoding practices to participate in the metadata collaborative”(Roel, 2005, p. 23). According to White (2002), some suggest the need for amuseum-specific standard, instead of museums adapting EAD to their collec-tions, but she argued that EAD “seems to offer an enduring, stable mechanismfor content placement—even as complementary or more advanced schemasdevelop” (p. 19), and EAD is one that was developed within the culturalheritage community.

Another advantage to EAD is its cost-effectiveness. DeRidder (2011) ar-gued that leveraging existing EAD finding aids provides libraries with shrink-ing budgets a low-cost solution for providing content to users. Using this ap-proach, archives could use these finding aids for search and retrieval, ratherthan using additional resources to create item-level descriptions. DeRidder,Axley Presnell, and Walker (2012) included a cost and usability analysis, andthey developed a system for linking digitized items into EAD finding aids,which increased access and decreased costs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 55

Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Worksand Their Images (CCO) and Categories for the Descriptionof Works of Art (CDWA)

Very little has been published on CDWA and CCO, although the few piecesthat exist tend to emphasize the description of elements and frameworksover examples of the standards being used in organizations. The exceptionto this is Lanzi (2004), who relied upon real-world examples and emphasizedthe involvement of user communities in the development of CCO. CCO wascreated primarily to describe visual art and architecture but is applicable toa variety of other works as well (Coburn, Lanzi, O’Keefe, Stein, & Whiteside,2010). CCO takes a broad approach to defining “visual art” and includesin its focus area such diverse forms as sculpture, manuscripts, and pho-tographs. The other works CCO might be applied to include archaeologicalsites, artifacts, and functional objects (Coburn et al., 2010).

Only Coburn et al. (2010) have written on CDWA as well as CCO, leavinga great deal of room for future work. Although little has been published onit in scholarly journals, CCO did receive some positive reviews upon release.Burnett (2008) argued that it is structured around flexible elements, and“emphasizes cataloging practice without attempting to enforce a single rigidframework or limit the contexts within which such practices take place”(Burnett, 2008, p. 327).

In one of Coburn et al.’s (2010) projects, they described how CDWALite and Museumdat (a metadata schema) might be combined and how thoseinterplay with CCO. According to them, CDWA is a framework that, like CCO,was designed to document cultural works and images. CDWA Lite is based onthe original CDWA framework, and was created to facilitate access to uniquecultural works in a digital world. CDWA Lite follows recommendations madein CCO, such as encapsulating data in a way that is user-friendly.

Other Standards

A variety of other standards have been applied to metadata creation in muse-ums and archives. Some of these are modified versions of earlier standards.For example, Encoded Archival Context (EAC) was created to complementand refine EAD (Thurman, 2005). Thurman (2005) discussed EAD alongsideEAC and described projects that focused on EAD or EAC implementationin order to discuss practical implications. Thurman and Pitti (2004) both ar-gued that EAC provides an option to construct more detailed creator recordsthat offer additional context related to the collection. EAC includes a nestingstructure like EAD.4

Some researchers have used more broadly applicable metadata stan-dards to describe items in museum and archival collections. Le Boeuf (2012a,2012b) looked at the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

56 J. Skinner

(FRBR) and the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CIDOC CRM) andfound that these models were not sufficient for working with all archival ma-terials, although he did note that some aspects of each fit well with archivaldescription. Carini and Shepherd (2004) detailed the Five College FindingAids Access Project and discussed the relationship between EAD and MARC,highlighting the importance of standardization as a part of adapting to tech-nological change.

One disadvantage to relying upon existing nonspecialized standards isthat they may not be able to account for all the pertinent metadata thatshould be included in an archival record, as noted in Le Boeuf (2012a,2012b). Another considerable disadvantage is that controlled vocabulary maynot match the search terms being used by researchers. One possible way tomitigate this while also encouraging users to participate in metadata creationwas proposed in Flanagan and Carini (2012). They constructed an opensource software called Metadata Games, which allows users who may nototherwise participate in metadata creation to do so using a gaming interfaceand which can collect metadata on a much larger scale than might otherwisebe possible.

Zeng (1999) classified museum objects from a historic fashion collectionusing three standards: the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition(AACR2); Dublin Core elements; and the Visual Resources Association (VRA)Core Categories for Visual Resources. In a comparison of the three, she foundthat AACR2, when used with MARC records, is useful for differentiating thesources of subject terms and including notes but takes an incredible amountof work and expertise to complete properly. It is also too restrictive in someinstances, as the fields are inflexible. The VRA Core Categories are art-specificand tend to be more flexible and adaptable. Zeng noted that Dublin Coreis especially useful for websites, although with some modification it couldbe useful for museum description as well. She also pointed out difficultiesin mapping between the different standards, since the categories were notalways well matched. All of the standards she used had benefits, but she feltthat all of them were still too tied to describing text objects.

Widrich (2003) studied Dublin Core in the context of the Vektor projectfor European contemporary art archives in order to determine the standard’sappropriateness in this context. Although some stakeholders express con-cerns that it would be too imprecise, Dublin Core’s structure allows for asimple and flexible system that would complement those already in place.This argument is in opposition to Zeng’s (1999) argument that Dublin Corewould be most useful in cultural heritage descriptions if it were modified,suggesting the need for additional analysis of Dublin Core in archival versusnonarchival contexts.

Kiesling (2001) compared EAD and Dublin Core and argued that EADsupports archival practice but lacks the robust mechanisms for web resourcediscovery found in Dublin Core. She also located a number of areas where

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 57

the relationships between the two standards could be improved in orderto make discovery more effective. For any standard, van Hooland et al.(2013) cautioned that cultural heritage institutions need a clear understandingof what to expect prior to reconciling their local metadata and controlledvocabularies in the Linked Data cloud. Using OpenRefine, they were able toreconcile a locally developed vocabulary with Library of Congress SubjectHeadings and the Arts and Architecture Thesaurus.

THEORY AND METHOD IN CULTURAL HERITAGEMETADATA RESEARCH

Theory tends to be absent from most articles on metadata in cultural her-itage institutions. One notable exception is Sternfeld’s 2011 article, whichargued that building a new theory and methodological approach can bridgethe gap between historians and archivists in working with “digital histor-ical representations” (p. 544), which include “archives, databases, geospa-tial visualizations, and mobile applications” (p. 544). The proposed theoryand methodology would focus on “digital historiography,” is based in threearchival processes (selection, search, and applying metadata), and is definedas “the interdisciplinary study of the interaction of digital technology withhistorical practice.” (Sternfeld, 2011, p. 550).

In the portion dealing with metadata, establishing trustworthiness ispartially done by preserving the metadata’s form and content, which is par-ticularly important when trying to preserve a digital document and recordsacross multiple iterations. Sternfeld (2011) drew upon the work of severalother researchers, who all highlighted the importance of context when work-ing with archival metadata. Gilliland, Rouche, Lindberg, and Evans (2005)discussed the relation between metadata records as an important form ofcontext and revealed the value of some records compared to others. Bear-man and Lytle (1985) also argued that trust in an item’s provenance resultsin greater trust in its metadata. Provenance and other contexts are vital topreserve in a digital archival or digital humanities space, as they contributeto the perceived trustworthiness of the materials being described. However,the siloing of different fields working with these records risks the distortionor loss of that context (Sternfeld, 2011). While Sternfeld effectively arguedfor the need for theory, no formal model was presented.

While theory building is not usually a part of the metadata researchprocess, many researchers do rely on models to guide them as they createmetadata, implement new standards, and describe those standards in pub-lications. FRBR is one such model, which consists of four entities (work,expression, manifestation, and item) and the relationships between them(Ya-ning & Chen, 2004). Ya-ning and Chen (2004) conducted a case studythat applied this model to the National Palace Museum in Taipei’s metadata

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

58 J. Skinner

activities, using CDWA. They found that the model is helpful in providinga framework for analysis and implementation and in identifying properlyorganized metadata.

Ferro and Silvello (2013) and Niu (2013) proposed models that placeemphasis on context. Ferro and Silvello’s NEsted SeTs for Object hieRarchies(NESTOR) drew from existing hierarchies, such as EAD, to situate the recordwithin its archival context. Nui (2013) used the resource description metadataschema (RDMS) to create bibliographic records that preserve the descriptionsof context found in archival records and tied nicely with Sternfeld’s (2011)argument that context is important to preserve in metadata.

Smiraglia’s (2005) model for conceptualizing the representation of mu-seum artifacts is referred to as the content genealogy model. This modeldescribes the artifact itself, as well as a variety of representations related tothat artifact (e.g., a printed image of the artifact) and could be used as thebasis for theory building that helps us think about metadata in a way thatincludes a wider array of items. Le Boeuf (2012a, 2012b) outlined the short-comings of FRBR and CIDOC CRM when working with some rare and uniquematerials and proposed a new model that combines them. CIDOC CRM isan object-oriented ontology (Gill, 2004). Coburn et al. (2010) mentionedit briefly when they describe the Museumdat XML schema that consists ofcategories created in accordance with the CIDOC CRM model. Gill (2004) ex-plained the model’s structure, purpose, and scope, and argued that it couldbe used to build a “global Semantic Web of culture” (sec. 5) that wouldbridge a variety of institutions.

Authors used a variety of methods in their research on metadata in cul-tural heritage settings. Some more common methods included surveys orinterviews of archivists (e.g., Prom, 2001; Yaco, 2008; Yakel & Kim, 2005),others engaged in reflections of their own work (e.g., Dow, 1997; Wisser& Roper, 2003), some did usability studies or outline training programs(e.g., DeRidder, Axley Presnell, & Walker, 2012; Gilgenbach, McCrory, &Gaj, 2007), while others described a coding standard or an implementa-tion process (e.g., Fox, 1997; Morris, 1997; Thurman, 2005), although otherless common methods were also employed (e.g., the qualitative case studymethod used in Donaldson & Conway, 2010). While there is a good deal ofvariety in the existing literature, applying other methods to metadata researchmight be a fruitful area for future research that unlocks new approaches totackling metadata problems.

TRENDS IN METADATA RESEARCH IN THE CULTURALHERITAGE ENVIRONMENT

Some metadata research explores different guidelines and tools and their ef-fectiveness. Boyle, Gunge, Bryden, Librowski, and Hsin-Yi (2002) described

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 59

the concepts behind the museum archive retrieval system, a research toolthat uses a thesaurus structure to allow organizations to exchange digitalitems and merge metadata. The authors argued it could be used for a va-riety of future applications within cultural heritage institutions and beyond.However, no additional work has been done to explore these applications.

Coburn et al. (2010) constructed three scenarios using CCO and foundthat CCO presented unique challenges in each case. They also found thatdifferences in catalogers’ conceptions of the items they described (e.g., dif-ferent conceptions of “work”) influenced the end result. Calvo (2001) sug-gested using Nomen XML DTD for adding biographical data to EAD findingaids, arguing that this tool would make the process simpler and less timeconsuming.

Hswe, Kaczmarek, Houser, and Eke (2009) studied the Web ArchivesWorkbench (WAW) suite of tools. WAW was developed as part of a col-laborative project and is rooted in aggregate-based archiving rather thanin individually created archival records, with the goal of bridging the gapbetween automated capture and manual selection. Hswe et al. also usedPREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies (PREMIS) to support thesharing of metadata between multiple institutions (Hswe et al., 2009). Don-aldson and Conway (2010) also wrote about PREMIS. Their article describedthe implementation process for PREMIS and used a qualitative case studymethod to discuss the implementation process at the Florida Digital Archive.

Some cultural heritage institutions also rely on tagging and folksonomiesto produce user-generated metadata. Srinivasan, Boast, Becvar, and Furner(2009) used an experimental interface called “Blobgects” to promote socialtagging and blogging related to cultural heritage objects in a museum andfound that simply introducing the ability to tag and comment is not sufficientfor promoting user involvement. Instead, Web 2.0 technologies would bemore effective in these settings if they provided users with a starting point tohelp them contextualize what they were seeing and gave them the chance torelate it to their own needs and understanding. Flanagan and Carini (2012)proposed Metadata Games as a novel approach to engaging reluctant usersand gathering user-generated metadata.

Other authors discussed the creation and implementation of metadatastandards in digital museum and archive settings. For example, Chandler(2002) described the development of the Museum Online Archive of Califor-nia, which resulted in the development of two locally developed metadatastandards (CDL [California Digital Library] Imaging Standards and CDL DigitalObject Standard for Metadata, Content, and Encoding) to which all memberinstitutions must adhere.

Research over the last two decades has tried to take into account thevariety of institutions in which new metadata standards might be imple-mented. Prom (2001) looked at the EAD Cookbook, developed to encouragesmaller institutions to transition to EAD. He conducted a survey to assess the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

60 J. Skinner

cookbook and found that it is generally an effective way to meet minimumusability requirements and streamline the encoding process. Dow (1997)described EAD implementation in a small library, where the individuals in-volved in the project included two nonexpert personnel (two undergraduatestudents working part-time) and a faculty member, who were supportedby the library’s systems staff. The implementation project raises a varietyof questions, including what constitutes accurate EAD markup and how toapproach and describe differences between print and digital publication.

Collaboration has been a theme across many standards implementationprojects. McCrory and Russell (2005) described their collaborative experiencebetween special collections and technical services at a single university. Inthis study, the goal is to implement EAD and crosswalk archival informationinto other formats, particularly MARC. Working collaboratively allows thoseinvolved with implementation to benefit from a variety of perspectives and toensure that important archival information is maintained while being madeavailable in usable ways (McCrory & Russell, 2005).

Similarly, Wisser and Roper (2003) described work done by catalogingand special collections to create records in EAD and MARC. They foundthe use of these two standards valuable because they could create findingaids using multiple schemas. They argued that EAD and MARC complementeach other, as one is appropriate for sharing collection overviews within theOnline Public Access Catalog (making potential patrons aware of archivalholdings), while the other allows for the depth and rich description typi-cally associated with archival finding aids (Wisser & Roper, 2003). Schneider(2012) emphasized the use of multiple standards when advocating for peertraining as a way to increase proficiency with metadata by cultural heritageprofessionals.

Other authors described collaborative efforts across different types ofinstitutions. Caplan and Haas (2004) highlighted the challenges associatedwith sharing records between a library and a museum, when each relieson different systems and descriptions. Elings and Waibel (2007) offered abroader view, by describing how metadata is used in libraries, archives, andmuseums. They categorized the standards in use and offered insights intohow descriptive practices might be more efficient. They argued that, insteadof conceptualizing standards as applying to only one community of practice,they should be used in a way that focuses on a particular material but is notlimited to one community (Elings & Waibel, 2007).

Roel (2005) described the Music of Social Change (MOSC) project,5

a library-museum-archives collaboration using the OAI-PMH to bridge theinstitutions’ varying metadata practices. She argued that few institutions haveadopted this approach and points to each institution’s distinct approach tometadata production as a potential barrier (library materials are catalogedat the item level, while archival materials are context-bound to the largercollection and museums have very bare bones documentation of artifacts).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 61

One of the challenges to metadata creation and maintenance is thewide variety of items that must be considered when applying metadata tocollections. Smiraglia (2005) analyzed Etruscan artifacts to understand whe-ther the concept of “the work” would still be relevant when applied tothese materials and discovered that it could be if our conceptualization ofinstantiation was slightly altered to refer to “content genealogy” (p. 138–139).He also argued that there would be many representations for a work bothwithin the museum and externally.

McCrory (2002) outlined a 2-year project focusing on processing anddescribing comic strips from the San Francisco Academy of Comic Art col-lection. She located a variety of issues that initially seem specific to workingwith comic strips—but argued that they have broader implications. Just likeSmiraglia (2005), she felt that there is significant overlap between metadatafor different work formats and that those familiar with the metadata for dif-ferent formats can learn from each other. This argument ties in with thebenefits of multiple perspectives that are described in articles on collabora-tion (e.g., McCrory & Russell, 2005). Similar to McCrory (2002), Elings (2000)described the particular challenges associated with working with pictorialarchives, including a lack of the existing organizational structures that ex-ist for manuscript collections, and offered suggestions for overcoming theseusing EAD.

Altermatt and Hilton (2012) studied the Printed Ephemera Collections atNew York University’s Tamiment Library and described the struggles associ-ated with working with this type of material. They focused on the challengesassociated with adapting archival methods to best fit the content (ephemera)while also being compatible with a collection that continues to grow. Cornishand Merrill (2010) analyzed several available software solutions for workingwith a variety of collections, including photographs and manuscripts thatwould be published online. While they did locate some sticking points whileusing each solution, they also found options that worked to resolve thoseissues and enable libraries to put collections online.

Lim and Liew (2011) underscored the complexity of the metadata land-scape in museums and archives. They examined metadata records from 16institutions and conducted interviews with employees. Like Roel (2005), theyfound that galleries, libraries, archives, and museums all use metadata differ-ently and adapt it to suit diverse needs. For digital images in particular, theyfound a lack of technical metadata. Additionally, they discovered that theirinterviewees agreed with interoperability in theory but found many of themused proprietary systems so were unsure how it would work in practice (Lim& Liew, 2011).

Chen, Chen, and Chen (2002) also highlighted the importance of in-teroperability. Their metadata system is specific to Chinese-language in-formation (Metadata Interchange for Chinese Information) and includesan XML/metadata management system called Metalogy for use in cultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

62 J. Skinner

heritage institutions in Taiwan. Part of their work involved studying themetadata of cultural heritage collections elsewhere that uses a variety ofstandards, then developing a set of procedures for metadata creation thatincludes needs assessment and interoperability considerations.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Two of the greatest shortcomings of the current body of literature surround-ing cultural heritage and archival metadata are a lack of theory and a strongfocus on creating and describing different standards without considering therich array of potential applications and interdisciplinary collaborations thatcould result from sharing these standards across a variety of environments.Such research would allow practitioners and researchers to think about novelways to apply or create metadata in their own environments and to benefitfrom colleagues at other institutions and/or in other fields.

Lanzi (2004) is a good example of work that draws upon a numberof knowledge areas to discuss a standard. She relied heavily upon real-lifeexamples to show the usefulness of CCO, shared these examples alongsideimportant discussions about what constitutes a work, and showed how suchdiscussions informed the standard’s development. She used examples thatcatalogers might encounter regularly in order to show practitioners and re-searchers how this standard might be applied and how the effort of creatingCCO records is rewarded with metadata that is tailored to the unique worldof cultural heritage. Perhaps most importantly, she also highlighted the roleof the professional community in the creation of CCO. Future researcherswould benefit considerably from reflecting upon the value of such feedbackand discussing how the presence or absence of user feedback might impactthe creation or application of standards (Lanzi, 2004).

Collaboration is an issue that continues to be raised in the literatureand offers additional areas for research. Schneider (2012) found that smallerinstitutions often lack the resources to train staff in best practices and arguedthat larger institutions should fill this gap through peer training programs inorder to produce robust and interoperable metadata across institutions of allsizes. Likewise, White (2002) emphasized the importance of collaboration inhelping “object-rich but resource-poor cultural heritage institutions sustainlarger public access projects” (p. 19).

Continuing to promote collaboration is a way to bridge gaps for thosewith fewer resources and to provide multiple perspectives on a project, asMcCrory and Russell (2005) did. Researchers could also study the impactof different types of collaborative activities (e.g., between metadata creatorsat different institutions versus metadata creators and users). The literaturepoints to several areas where training and improvements may be needed.Yaco (2008) found a variety of barriers to implementing EAD, including a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 63

lack of staff, inadequate technology, and the need for additional training.Yaco (2008) found that different training approaches, acquiring user-friendlysoftware, and leveraging the skills of consultants may be possible solutions.

One good way to pinpoint needed training and improvements is throughusability tests. DeRidder, Axley Presnell, and Walker (2012) conducted a us-ability test as a part of their work linking EAD finding aids to digitized items.Importantly, they conducted their test with novice users, which provided abaseline and showed where training could be focused or system improve-ments made based upon those with little experience. As new technologiesand standards arise, such novice-level usability tests may be an important partof efforts to streamline metadata creation on a broad scale, although thereis also value in testing more experienced users and using their feedback toinform ongoing improvements.

More papers that describe collaborative efforts between institutions,such as Caplan and Haas’ (2004) study on integrating records from a libraryand a museum and Gilgenbach et al.’s (2007) discussion of the OhioLINKEAD Factory, would be useful. Caplan and Haas’ (2004) project revealedmany inconsistencies between the two organizations’ records that need tobe resolved. Describing these inconsistencies and the challenges and oppor-tunities posed by cross-institutional projects may provide valuable insightsto those proposing other projects and show metadata researchers how im-plementation is taking place in practice. Gilgenbach et al. (2007) describeda consortium project that included a Web application that allowed a user tocreate a finding aid without knowledge of EAD tagging or code, as well asa finding aid repository. Their article is particularly valuable as it outlinesthe Web application and repository and the functionality of each, as well astraining programs for users.

When it comes to the standards themselves, more research is neededto analyze applicability in a variety of settings and identify shortcomings.While EAD has some coverage in the literature, this is less true of CCOand CDWA. Both standards need to be more thoroughly studied in order tounderstand their role in the cultural heritage environment and to fully assesstheir strengths and weaknesses. The same rigor might be applied to otherstandards touched on in this review as well, which would create a body ofwork that addresses a diverse set of tools and be thorough enough to guidepractitioners when considering which tools they wish to implement.

One especially important area for future work is the creation of usablemodels and theories to undergird practice and guide content creators inproducing high-quality, interoperable metadata. Sternfeld (2011) has begunthis process, and other researchers could continue to think about theoryand model building for digital archival materials or reframe their thinkingto consider different contexts (e.g., physical collections). Ya-ning and Chen(2004) felt that there were areas the FRBR model left unexplored, such astension between metadata formats and information granularity, that may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

64 J. Skinner

be useful in future theory and model development. Smiraglia (2005) hasalso argued for continued theory development that would adapt our currentthinking about bibliography and metadata to be more inclusive of non-bookmaterials.

Most recently, Ferro and Silvello (2013) proposed a formal model fordigital archives they call NESTOR, based on the concepts of hierarchy andcontext, both of which are central to the understanding and description ofarchival objects. Niu (2013) also discussed the hierarchical nature of severalstandards, including EAD, and discussed a new standard (RDMS) that at-tempts to merge bibliographic description with archival description. Futureresearch could certainly benefit from applying and testing this model in avariety of settings.

Future researchers could also consider how they might create modelsthat address context and the vital role it plays in the world of cultural heritageobjects. For example, Ferro and Silvello’s (2013) model situated a work withinthe hierarchy of the archive, but future models could draw upon models notspecific to metadata in order to consider how that work might be situatedin other contexts (e.g., the context of the item’s provenance or the processof its creation) and how those contexts impact its description (e.g., Whatelements are missing in existing schemas? Are there particular aspects of anitem’s context that are especially difficult to classify?) Niu (2013) began tounpack some of these considerations in thinking about the different ways inwhich works and their contexts have been described, but there is still roomfor additional reflection and analysis.

One potential research area could take into consideration Lim andLiew’s (2011) conceptualization of galleries, libraries, archives, and muse-ums (GLAM). While many library contexts may not focus on primary sourcematerials and other unique items, galleries do, although there is little saidabout them in existing research. Future researchers might consider compar-ing metadata production and use across galleries, archives, and museums.Metadata in cultural heritage institutions is a rich and exciting area of studyand one that undoubtedly will continue to offer challenges and insights toresearchers and practitioners across a variety of settings.

NOTES

1. This definition was derived from Lim and Liew (2011). Lim and Liew used a broader definitionand referred to GLAM. The role of metadata in libraries is extensive enough that it is beyond the scopeof any one article, so these institutions have been excluded from this analysis. Since there were so fewarticles on galleries, those have also been excluded out of necessity.

2. Smith included a description of the workflow associated with creating EAD finding aids for thosewho do not have a background in this area. In addition, Prom (2001) did a thorough literature reviewthat covers the development of EAD.

3. Interestingly, they also found that the diffusion pattern of EAD mirrored the diffusion pattern ofMARC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 65

4. Thurman (2005) offered a thorough discussion of the structure of both these standards, alongwith examples.

5. Roel originally shared these findings in 2005, and they were later published as Roel (2013) inInformation Technology and Libraries.

REFERENCES

Altermatt, R., & Hilton, A. (2012). Hidden collections within hidden collections:Providing access to printed ephemera. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=78021855&site=ehost-live

Bearman, D. A., & Lytle, R. H. (1985). The power of the principle of provenance.Archivaria, 21, 14–27.

Bouche, N. L. (1997). Implementing EAD in the Yale University Library. AmericanArchivist, 60(4), 408–419.

Boyle, J. M., Gunge, J., Bryden, J., Librowski, K., & Hsin-Yi, H. (2002). Sentence-based metadata: An approach and tool for viewing database designs. Journalof Information Science, 28(2), 143–156.

Burnett, G. (2008). Cataloging cultural objects. Library Quarterly, 78(3), 327–328.Calvo, A. M. (2001). Structuring biographical data in EAD with the Nomen DTD.

Encoded Archival Description, 17(4), 187–199.Caplan, P., & Haas, S. (2004). Metadata rematrixed: Merging museum and library

boundaries. Library Hi Tech, 22(3), 263–269.Carini, P., & Shepherd, K. (2004). The MARC standard and Encoded Archival De-

scription. Library Hi Tech, 22(1), 18–27.Chandler, R. (2002). Museums in the Online Archive of California (MOAC): Building

digital collections across libraries and museums. First Monday, 7(5–6). Retrievedfrom http://www.firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/952/873

Chen, C., Chen, H., & Chen, K. (2002). The design of metadata for the DigitalMuseum Initiative in Taiwan. Online Information Review, 26(5), 295–306.

Coburn, E., Lanzi, E., O’Keefe, E., Stein, R., & Whiteside, A. (2010). The CatalogingCultural Objects experience: Codifying practice for the cultural heritage com-munity. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 16–29.

Cornish, A. (2004). Using a native XML database for encoded archival descriptionsearch and retrieval. Information Technology & Libraries, 23(4), 181–184.

Cornish, A., & Merrill, A. (2010). Enabling integrated, online access to special col-lections. Technical Services Quarterly, 27(2), 151–163.

DeRidder, J. L. (2011). Leveraging EAD for low-cost access to digitized contentat the University of Alabama libraries. Journal of Library Innovation, 2(1),45–60.

DeRidder, J. L., Axley Presnell, A., & Walker, K. W. (2012). Leveraging encodedarchival description for access to digital content: A cost and usability analysis.American Archivist, 75(1), 143–170.

Donaldson, D. R., & Conway, P. (2010). Implementing PREMIS: A case study of theFlorida Digital Archive. Technology and Digital Preservation, 28(2), 273–289.

Dow, E. H. (1997). EAD and the small repository. American Archivist, 60(4),446–455.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

66 J. Skinner

Elings, M. W. (2000). Pictorial archives and EAD: Indexing collections for onlineaccess. Art Documentation, 19(2), 10–14.

Elings, M. W., & Waibel, G. (2007). Metadata for all: Descriptive standards and meta-data sharing across libraries, archives and museums. First Monday, 12(3). Re-trieved from http://www.firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1628/1543

Ferro, N., & Silvello, G. (2013). NESTOR: A formal model for digital archives. Infor-mation Processing & Management, 49(6), 1206–1240.

Flanagan, M., & Carini, P. (2012). How games can help us access and understandarchival images. American Archivist, 75(2), 514–537.

Fox, M. J. (1997). Implementing encoded archival description: An overviewof administrative and technical considerations. American Archivist, 60(3),330–343.

Gilgenbach, C., McCrory, A., & Gaj, D. (2007). The OhioLINK EAD Factory: Consortialcreation and delivery of EAD. Archival Issues: Journal of the Midwest ArchivesConference, 31(2), 151–170.

Gill, T. (2004). Building semantic bridges between museums, libraries and archives:The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. First Monday, 9(5). Retrieved fromhttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1145/1065

Gilliland, A., Rouche, N., Lindberg, L., & Evans, J. (2005). Toward a 21st century meta-data infrastructure supporting the creation, preservation, and use of trustworthyrecords: Developing the InterPARES 2 metadata schema registry. Archival Sci-ence, 5(1), 43–78.

Hensen, S. L. (1997). “NISTF II” and EAD: The evolution of archival description. TheAmerican Archivist, 60(3), 284–296.

Hswe, P., Kaczmarek, J., Houser, L., & Eke, J. (2009). The Web Archives Workbench(WAW) tool suite: Taking an archival approach to the preservation of Webcontent. Library Trends, 57(3), 442–460.

Kiesling, K. (1997). EAD as an archival descriptive standard. The American Archivist,60(3), 344–354.

Kiesling, K. (2001). Metadata, metadata, everywhere—but where is the hook? OCLCSystems & Services, 17(2), 84–88.

Lacy, M. A., & Mitchell, A. S. C. (1997). EAD testing and implementation at theLibrary of Congress. American Archivist, 60(4), 420–435.

Lanzi, E. (2004). Cataloguing cultural objects: New guidelines for descriptive cata-loging. Art Libraries Journal, 29(4), 26–32.

Le Boeuf, P. (2012a). Modeling rare and unique documents: Using FRBR00/CIDOCCRM. Journal of Archival Organization, 10(2), 96–106.

Le Boeuf, P. (2012b). A strange model named FRBR OO. Cataloging & ClassificationQuarterly, 50(5–7), 422–438.

Lim, S., & Liew, C. L. (2011). Aslib Proceedings, 63(5), 484–498.McCrory, A. (2002). Archiving newspaper comic strips: The San Francisco Academy

of Comic Art Collection. Archival Issues: Journal of the Midwest Archives Con-ference, 27(2), 137–150.

McCrory, A., & Russell, B. M. (2005). Crosswalking EAD: Collaboration in archivaldescription. Information Technology & Libraries, 24(3), 99–106.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings 67

Meissner, D. E. (1997). First things first: Reengineering finding aids for implementa-tion of EAD. The American Archivist, 60(4), 372–387.

Morris, L. A. (1997). Developing a cooperative intra-institutional approach to EADimplementation: The Harvard/Radcliffe Digital Finding Aids Project. The Amer-ican Archivist, 60(4), 388–407.

Niu, J. (2013). Hierarchical relationships in the bibliographic universe. Cataloging &Classification Quarterly, 51(5), 473–490.

Pitti, D. V. (1997). Encoded archival description: The development of an encodingstandard for archival finding aids. American Archivist, 60(3), 268–283.

Pitti, D. V. (2004). Creator description: Encoded archival context. Cataloging & Clas-sification Quarterly, 38(3/4), 201–226.

Prom, C. J. (2001). Extending the capabilities of the EAD cookbook. EncodedArchival Description, 17(2), 89–95.

Roel, E. (2005). The MOSC project: Using the OAI-PMH to bridge metadata culturaldifferences across museums, archives, and libraries. Information Technology &Libraries, 24(1), 22–24.

Roel, E. (2013). The MOSC project: Using the OAI-PMH to bridge metadata culturaldifferences across museums, archives, and libraries. Information Technologyand Libraries, 24(1), 22–24.

Schneider, I. (2012). Making lemonade: The potential of increased peer metadatatraining among cultural heritage professionals. Collaborative Librarianship, 4(2),53–59.

Smiraglia, R. P. (2005). Content metadata: An analysis of Etruscan artifacts in amuseum of archeology. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3/4), 135–151.

Smith, P. L., II. (2008). Preparing locally encoded electronic finding aid inventoriesfor union environments: A publishing model for Encoded Archival Description.Information Technology & Libraries, 27(2), 26–30.

Srinivasan, R., Boast, R., Becvar, K. M., & Furner, J. (2009). Blobgects: Digital museumcatalogs and diverse user communities. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 60(4), 666–678.

Sternfeld, J. (2011). Archival theory and digital historiography: Selection, search,and metadata as archival processes for assessing historical contextualization.American Archivist, 74(2), 544–575.

Thurman, A. (2005). Metadata standards for archival control: An introduction to EADand EAC. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3/4), 183–212.

van Hooland, S., Verborgh, R., De Wilde, M., Hercher, J., Mannens, E., & Van deWalle, R. (2013). Evaluating the success of vocabulary reconciliation for culturalheritage collections. Journal of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology, 64(3), 464–479. doi: 10.1002/asi.22763

White, L. (2002). Museum implementation of Encoded Archival Description. ArtDocumentation, 21(1), 15–20.

Widrich, M. (2003). Archiving the present: The Vektor project for European contem-porary art archives. Art Libraries Journal, 28(4), 31–33.

Wisser, K. M., & Roper, J. O. (2003). Maximizing metadata: Exploring the EAD-MARCrelationship. Library Resources & Technical Services, 47(2), 71–76.

Wisser, K., & Dean, J. (2013). EAD tag usage: Community analysis of the use ofEncoded Archival Description elements. American Archivist, 76(2), 542–566.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

68 J. Skinner

Yaco, S. (2008). It’s complicated: Barriers to EAD implementation. AmericanArchivist, 71(2), 456–475.

Yakel, E., & Kim, J. (2005). Adoption and diffusion of Encoded Archival Description.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(13),1427–1437.

Ya-ning, C., & Chen, S. (2004). A metadata practice of the IFLA FRBR model: A casestudy for the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Journal of Documentation,60(2), 128–143.

Zeng, M. L. (1999). Metadata elements for object description and representation: Acase report from a digitized historical fashion collection project. Journal of theAssociation for Information Science and Technology, 50(13), 1193–1208.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ouis

ville

] at

20:

07 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014