running head: metadata recordsnaomimellendorf.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/9/5/25950594/n_3...cataloging...
TRANSCRIPT
Running HEAD: METADATA RECORDS
Artifact 3: Evaluating Metadata
Naomi Mellendorf
Assignment 3: Metadata Records Project
LIBR 281-10: Metadata
School of Library and Information Science
San Jose State University
December 9, 2013
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 2
Introduction
Cataloging three-dimensional objects and their digital image surrogates has
always been problematic for libraries whose primary holdings constitute books and
serials. It is a rare library, however, that does not find within its collections, objects of
public and scholarly interest—paintings, sculptures, quilts and textiles, and other cultural
artifacts. It behooves libraries to record descriptive details such as access, holdings,
provenance and rights information regarding such objects, not only for security and
inventory purposes, but also for the library’s interested constituents. Beyond a mere
inventory, creating rich and descriptive metadata could enhance discovery, access,
appreciation, and enjoyment of cultural objects. However, most libraries manage and
describe their bibliographic holdings using the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC)
data format and the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) in an
integrated library system. These tools do not assist metadata specialists in the creation of
rich description for three-dimensional objects or their digital surrogates very well.
Though the intention of the second edition of AACR was to provide a template for
describing any item a library might have, three-dimensional objects and digital images
have remained problematic (Bierbaum, 1985; Bierbaum, 1990; Mitchell, 2013). As newer
standards and greater interoperability have emerged, the potential to create rich metadata
for three-dimensional objects in more traditional settings has become feasible. This
feasibility leads to the following questions for consideration:
1) Is the MARC format still viable as a data structure and if so, will the
succession of Resource Description and Access (RDA) to AACR2 increase MARC’s
viability or work best in conjunction with a successor to MARC?
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 3
2) Does RDA’s foundational connections to the conceptual model Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) create new potential for metadata
creation across physical boundaries?
3) Is the ubiquitous Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) a potential
candidate to improve metadata for three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates?
4) Should libraries look outside their communities to museums and visual
resource collections to schemes such as Categories for the Description of Works of Art
(CDWA) and Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO)?
5) Ultimately, which metadata scheme would work best for the creation of rich
metadata for the description of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates?
The purpose of this metadata project is three-fold: 1) to examine several metadata
schemes including MARC (in conjunction with RDA), DCMES, and CDWA/COO for
the purpose of identifying viable candidates for the description of three-dimensional,
cultural artifacts and their digital surrogates; 2) to create descriptive records of three-
dimensional cultural objects in the aforementioned schemas; and 3) to analyze and
evaluate the records for the quality of their metadata.
The MARC Format and RDA
The MARC format is a carrier standard developed in the 1960s that has been
widely adopted and used in library communities for cataloging traditional materials
(Lopatin, 2010). Additional revisions in the MARC format and the general material
designations (GMD) in AACR2 to more fully accommodate visual and three-dimensional
objects, however, have been met with limited success and adoption outside of libraries
(Bierbaum, 1990; Mitchell, 2013; Olson, 2000). While MARC and AACR2 have served
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 4
the library community well in managing traditional formats, their time for revision may
be past. Revolution, not revision, may indeed be best in order to manage digital resources,
linked data, and cultural heritage communities beyond libraries who find MARC and
AACR2 inadequate for description of works of art, architecture, cultural objects and
images (Whiteside, 2005).
In 2003, Tillett described the activities of the Study Group of the International
Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) who issued a report that
presented a conceptual model titled Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
(FRBR). Though AACR2 claimed to accommodate all types of materials, formats, and
forms, the FRBR conceptual model attempts also to describe the relationships among the
materials, those responsible for that content and their collective subjects. Tillett indicated
that the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual model could have a profound
influence upon the description of resources as currently practiced in AACR2 and its
structural format and companion, MARC. Indeed, in the decade since, FRBR has become
the conceptual model for AACR2’s successor, Resource Description and Access (RDA)
when it was officially released in June 2010 (El-Sherbini and Curran, 2011; Kincy and
Wood, 2012; Mitchell, 2013; Picco and Ortiz Repiso, 2012).
El-Sherbini and Curran (2011) indicated in a pre-release conference presentation
that RDA’s use of FRBR for its conceptual framework, expansion in MARC fields to
accompany RDA’s changes, and the role of relationships in RDA will create a more
robust cataloging standard suitable for digital materials and cultural heritage communities
beyond libraries. Implying that RDA will enhance cataloging outside of libraries directly
ties the usefulness of RDA to communities that manage three-dimensional objects.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 5
Indeed, they point out “Unlike AACR2, RDA does not have different rules to cater to
different formats” (2011). In emphasizing the role of relationships in RDA, a metadata
scheme modeled on FRBR principles can generate bibliographic records that transcend
flat MARC records and provide users with linked and related resources (Picco and Ortiz
Repiso, 2012). In addition, RDA is an international initiative with a priority goal in
increasing access to and interoperability with international and non-library based
resources. This priority is further evidence that RDA in conjunction with MARC or RDA
in conjunction with Dublin Core (DC) or a new structural format is well suited to the
creation of rich metadata for three-dimensional objects and the digital representation of
those objects (Cassidy, 2011).
The Dublin Core Element Set
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) began as a series of informal
conversations at the 2nd Annual World Wide Web conference in Chicago, 1994.
Concerned professionals discussed the already apparent need to enable discovery of web
resources on a then young and emerging Web. Just a few months later, workshops began
to discuss a basic metadata format that could address the description of resources found
on the Web (Harper, 2010). Over the course of the late 1990s and early 2000s, a set of 15
metadata elements were finalized, published, and standardized by national and
international standards’ agencies (DCMI, 2013). The set of elements became known as
the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) and is often referred to simply as
Dublin Core (DC). The DCMES received especially heavy criticism from the library
community for its simplistic structure and format, often in comparison to the MARC
format and other library standards (Harper, 2010). Outside of the library community,
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 6
however, DCMES has been widely used particularly as a basis of more specialized
metadata element standards. Used in conjunction with properties and vocabularies
defined elsewhere, Dublin Core application profiles became the extensible and
interoperable metadata format capable of managing data at a high degree of granularity
and specificity that those in the library community had once said made DCES a poor
format (Harper, 2011). Furthermore, El-Sherbini and Curran (2011) posited that the
“Dublin Core encoding standard [is] more in line with the aims and approach of RDA
than MARC 21 and…Dublin Core will eventually usurp MARC as the dominant
encoding standard.” While it does not appear that the Bibliographic Framework Initiative,
the consortium of international bibliographic agencies charged with the task to transition
and replace MARC21, will utilize DCES as El-Sherbini and Curran suggest, DC’s
connection to the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and compatibility with linked
data initiatives is significant (Baker, 2012; Network Development and Standards Office,
2013A; Szeto, 2013). Indeed, LAM communities have embraced DCES and the
connected application profiles to describe digital resources—including those digital
resources that serve as surrogates to three-dimensional cultural artifacts—for the primary
reason that related initiatives such as linked data, FRBR, RDA, RDF and CCO have
converged and aligned more closely than ever before (Szeto, 2013). LAM communities
and the rich heritage of descriptive metadata these communities have created for
discovery and access may not be fully realized with the DCES, but the DCMI has moved
us all closer to a world with unbounded interconnectivity.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 7
Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) with CDWA
Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) is a data content standard developed by the
Visual Resources Association to facilitate the creation of rich, consistent, metadata for
the description of works of art and cultural objects (Lanzi, 2004; Visual Resources
Association, 2006). CCO does not address technical or administrative metadata for
artistic works and their surrogate images but focuses solely on descriptive content (Lanzi
and McRae, 2007). Used in conjunction with data element sets such as Dublin Core or
Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) and vocabulary standards such
as Getty’s Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) or the Library of Congress Subject
Headings (LCSH), CCO provides to the art and cultural heritage communities what
AACR2 and now RDA have provided to library cataloging communities for many years
(Coburn, 2007; Whiteside, 2005).
At the outset of the cataloging process, CCO makes a clear distinction between
the work or artifact and its surrogate image. Many elements may be used to describe and
document a work and its image and if distinctions are not made clear, retrieval or access
information may be confusing. Thus, CCO carefully defines the constitution and
substance of a work, built works, visual arts, cultural artifacts, and notably—image.
While a work in CCO is a creative product (and not analogous to a FRBR work), an
image is a visual representation of a work (Harpring, 2007). CCO allows the cataloger to
easily accommodate these distinctions and establish relationships between a work and its
image surrogate or relationships to other components of a larger work. This
accommodation sets CCO apart from the guidelines of AACR2 but relates it to RDA in
certain aspects. Furthermore, the ongoing development and adoption of RDA in library
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 8
communities in conjunction with the implementation of CCO in arts and visual resources
communities provides a great foundation for library communities to adapt CCO for object
cataloging in their special collections (Coburn, Lanzi, O'Keefe, et. al, 2010; O’Keefe,
2007).
Project Description
With the aforementioned background on MARCXML (with AACR2 and RDA),
DC, and CDWA/CCO in mind, I created 16 records in each schema: 6 records of
scrapbooks, 4 records of crocheted baby afghans, and 6 records of quilts. Each of these
16 cultural objects are unique, hand-created items, unpublished and without formal
description in a LAM setting. The MARC record creator available online from the
Commonwealth Braille and Talking Book Cooperative (http://www.cbtbc.org/marc/) was
used to generate MARCXML code. Records were further enhanced manually with the
XML editing software Oxygen for coverage, completeness, and alignment with AACR2
and RDA standards. The Advanced Generator available online at the Dublin Core
Generator (http://www.dublincoregenerator.com/generator.html) was used to generate
XML code recognizing the Dublin Core namespace. Again, the XML editor Oxygen was
used to enhance records manually for coverage, completeness and alignment with
standards such as Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Getty Art and
Architecture Thesaurus (AAT). Finally, the CDWA/CCO records were created manually
in Oxygen with the CDWALite schema declaration and the CDWALite namespace
declaration in place. Since such declarations were in place, the manual creation of valid,
well-formed, schema-compliant records, though a more lengthy a process than the auto-
generated MARC and DC records, was a reasonable and feasible process.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 9
Discussion and Analysis
Though five questions were posed at the outset of this investigation as
well as three purposes for this project, it is the fifth question and third purpose that forms
the focus of analysis for the 48 records created. It is important to reiterate both points
here: which metadata scheme would work best for the creation of rich metadata for the
description of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates; and, the purpose of
this metadata project is to analyze and evaluate the records for the quality of their
metadata. Let’s proceed to answer that question as an analysis and evaluation of metadata
quality unfolds.
Metadata Quality
Metadata quality is an elusive concept without an extensive history of established
conceptual and operational definitions (Park, 2010). However, researchers in metadata
creation and application have attempted to define its nature, study its effects, and make
recommendations for improvement and further study (Hillman, 2008; Kurtz, 2010; Park,
2009; Park & Tosaka, 2010A; Park & Tosaka, 2010B; Tani, Candela & Castelli, 2013).
For the purpose at hand—examining three metadata schemes to determine which one is
best suited for the creation of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates—it
would be best to use three criteria that are rapidly becoming the most accepted criteria for
metadata quality: completeness, accuracy, and consistency (Kurtz, 2010; Park, 2009;
Park & Tosaka, 2010A; Park & Tosaka, 2010B).
Park and Tosaka (2010B) defined completeness in metadata as that occasion
when “individual objects are described using all metadata elements that are relevant to
their full access capacity in digital repositories.” That is to say, metadata completeness
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 10
quality is high when there is enough metadata to assist in the functional purposes of
resource discovery and use. Metadata completeness quality is low when there is simply
not enough metadata to assist a user in discovering and using a resource. How much
metadata is needed to tip the balance from low quality completeness to high quality
completeness is beyond the scope of the present study, but suffice it to say that more
metadata is probably better than less. Considering that rich description is the goal in the
present study, a low completeness rate would not enhance the quality of rich description.
While independent evaluation of user resource discovery and use of this study’s records
is not feasible, completeness will be considered as the primary criteria for evaluating each
schema’s ability to provide rich description for three-dimensional objects.
In Park’s 2009 study of metadata quality in digital repositories, he defined
accuracy in metadata as “the accurate description and representation of data and
resources content.” Errors can include inaccurate data entry such as capitalization,
punctuation, spelling and typographical errors. Inaccurate data values can also result from
misapplication of metadata elements, e.g.: misunderstanding differences in creator,
contributor, and publisher (Park & Tosaka, 2010B). Since the present set of the author
created records under examination, accuracy will not be the primary focus of metadata
quality in this paper. Data entry errors have been reviewed and regulated. An
independent analysis of the records’ accuracy in metadata element application would be
necessary for an appropriate and unbiased review and is beyond the scope of this study.
Consistency is defined at conceptual and structural levels (Park & Tosaka,
2010B). At the conceptual level, consistency refers to the application of the same data
elements or values to similar concepts in resource description. The degree to which this
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 11
application occurs is its level of consistency. This type of consistency is related to the
type of accuracy errors in which metadata elements are applied incorrectly, i.e. attribute a
data value as a creator when it should be the publisher. A high quality of consistency at
the conceptual level means that across many records, data elements or values have been
applied and defined in a highly similar fashion. Consistency at the structural level
“concerns the extent to which the same structure of format is used for presenting similar
data attributes and elements of a resource” (Park & Tosaka, 2010B). For example,
encoding date elements in differing formats (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY) could
yield data consistency problems at the structural level. Again, since the present set of the
author created records under examination, consistency will not be the primary focus of
metadata quality in this study. Data values and data formats have been reviewed and
regulated. An independent analysis of the records’ consistency would be necessary for an
appropriate and unbiased review and is beyond the scope of this study.
Metadata Quality as “Completeness” in MARXML/AACR2 w/RDA Records
Completeness as a measure of metadata quality in MARCXML formatted records
describing three-dimensional objects such as scrapbooks, crocheted blankets, and quilts
provides details such as title, author, physical description (i.e.: dimensions), subject
headings and a general summary. It is unlikely however, that users seeking such objects
will know exact titles and may not know given authors (i.e., creators). Additionally, the
physical description is greatly lacking detail, as MARCXML and AACR2/RDA do not
assist much in describing such objects beyond their dimensions. As a result, the summary
field (i.e., 520) is likely to hold an extensive amount of descriptive data – data likely to be
found only through keyword searching and thus, probably not found at all. The
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 12
MARCXML format is an adequate format for describing three-dimensional objects, but it
doesn’t allow for much granularity in the objects’ details. Established data value
standards such as Library of Congress Subject Headings work well with the MARC
format, but again, fall short in providing the better headings that the Art and Architecture
Thesaurus would provide. If a library setting has few objects for description, the MARC
format and accompanying standards would provide adequate thought not rich description.
Metadata Quality as “Completeness” in DC with LCSH and AAT Records
Completeness as a measure of metadata quality in Dublin Core formatted records
describing three-dimensional objects such as scrapbooks, crocheted blankets, and quilts
provides details such as title, creator, description (summary), subject headings, format
(physical description such as size), provenance and rights holder. Additional data values
such as URIs have a central place in the Dublin Core format and certainly enhance the
description of the digital surrogates of three-dimensional objects. Once again, however,
the data elements that provide for physical description are lacking the detail and
granularity likely to be most helpful to researchers seeking such objects. The ability to
readily use the AAT in addition to LCSH in providing subject headings is useful. Again,
the description data element is likely to become a “catchall” bucket of data describing the
object when finer data elements could describe object details in a more granular fashion.
Though the three-dimensional objects described in this study’s records were for the
objects themselves and not their digital surrogates, the questions posed at the outset of
this study did wish to consider how best to describe an object’s digital surrogate. Perhaps
left to another study, it is likely that Dublin Core formatted records would provide
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 13
adequate description for the digital surrogates of three-dimensional objects, but this
format is not suitable for the rich description of the original objects themselves.
Metadata Quality as “Completeness” in CDWALite and CCO Records
Completeness as a measure of metadata quality in CDWALite and CCO
formatted records describing three-dimensional objects such as scrapbooks, crocheted
blankets, and quilts provides details such as type of work, title, creator, creator
information (i.e., nationality, birth/death dates), style, creation dates, and much more.
Physical description details include dimensions, materials, free-text summaries, and
inscriptions. The use of the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus is evident throughout
in establishing vocabularies for description of the object and truly enhance the level of
detail in the description. CDWALite with CCO was created to describe the objects found
in galleries, museums, and cultural heritage institutions. Their creators knew that
researchers do want to know if an object is made of acrylic yarn or processed by clay
ovens. The CDWALite with CCO format and content standard is well suited to describe
three-dimensional objects in a variety of information organizations and cultural heritage
institutions. Interoperability and extensibility between such formats and standards and
those more commonly used in libraries (i.e., MARC/AACR2) make it feasible and
possible to integrate the rich description of CDWALite/CCO for three-dimensional
objects into existing collections.
Conclusion
How does a library provide rich descriptive metadata for three-dimensional
objects and their digital image surrogates? Which metadata schema would work best for
the creation of rich metadata for the description of three-dimensional objects and their
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 14
digital surrogates? How does the analysis and evaluation of a set of records explore the
notion of metadata quality? A review of the questions posed at the outset and a brief
summary conclusion and implications for further research is provided here.
1) Is the MARC format still viable and if so, will the succession of Resource
Description and Access (RDA) to AACR2 increase MARC’s viability or work best in
conjunction to a successor to MARC? As things stand now, MARC will remain viable for
some time until the bibliographic communities make clear transitions via the BibFrame
Initiative. However, AACR2 in conjunction with MARC does not enhance the
description of three-dimensional artifacts sufficiently while the adoption of RDA does
hold some promise for rich description without physical boundaries.
2) Does RDA’s foundational connections to the conceptual model Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) create new potential for metadata
creation across physical boundaries? Yes, the FRBR model’s distinctions of work,
expression, manifestation, and item and it’s emphasis upon relationships and expression
in the Resource Description Framework holds great potential for rich description across
all materials.
3) Is the ubiquitous Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) a potential
candidate to improve metadata for three-dimensional objects and their digital
surrogates? It would certainly seem that DCMES could provide a great framework for
the digital image representations of three-dimensional objects especially if DCMES is
used in conjunction with a data content standard such as CCO and the appropriate
vocabulary standards. For the original three-dimensional objects, however, DCMES is
unlikely to offer great depth to their discovery and use.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 15
4) Should libraries look outside their communities to museums and visual
resource collections to schemes such as Categories for the Description of Works of Art
(CDWA) and Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO)? Yes, they certainly should do so.
There is much to be gained from adopting and adapting the metadata standards developed
with great expertise by their respective communities but shared across all LAM
communities. As we move toward a greater connectivity and interconnectivity than we
have ever seen via a truly linked web, we should prepare for such fluid connections now.
5) Ultimately, which metadata scheme would work best for the creation of rich
metadata for the description of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates?
and how does the record analysis and evaluation influence this choice? All of the
structural and content standards examined hold great potential for the description of
three-dimensional cultural heritage objects and their digital representations. Some
standards offer greater promise and flexibility while others hold a simpler, but less
satisfying solution. The CDWA and CCO schemas, exclusively or used in conjunction
with more established schemas such as MARC, offer the best options for rich, descriptive
metadata of cultural artifacts in any setting—library, archive or museum.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 16
References
Baker, T. (2012). Libraries, languages of description, and linked data: A Dublin core
perspective. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 116-133. doi:10.1108/07378831211213256
Bierbaum, E. G. (1985). The third dimension: Dealing with objects in public library
collections. Public Library Quarterly, 6, 33-49. doi:10.1300/J118v06n03_05
Bierbaum, E. G. (1990). MARC in museums: Applicability of the revised visual materials
format. Information Technology & Libraries, 9, 291-299.
Cassidy, J. L., & Milhorat, J. Y. (2011). RDA: What does it have to do with me? AALL
Spectrum, 16(2), 24-27.
Coburn, E. (2007). Beyond registration: Understanding what cataloging means to the
museum community. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 34(1), 76-80.
Coburn, E., Lanzi, E., O'Keefe, E., Stein, R., & Whiteside, A. (2010). The cataloging
cultural objects experience: Codifying practice for the cultural heritage
community. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 16-29. doi:10.1177/0340035209359561
DCMI home: Dublin core metadata initiative. (2013). Retrieved September 29, 2013,
from http://dublincore.org/index.shtml.rdf
El-Sherbini, M., & Curran, M. (2011). Resource description and access “RDA”: New
code for cataloging. Serials Librarian, 60(1-4), 7-15.
doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.55642
Harper, C. A. (2010). Dublin core metadata initiative: Beyond the element set.
Information Standards Quarterly, 22(1), 20-28.
Harpring, P. (2007). CCO overview and description. Visual Resources Association
Bulletin, 34(1), 34-44.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 17
Hillmann, D. I. (2008). Metadata quality: From evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Kincy, C. P., & Wood, M. A. (2012). Rethinking access with RDA (resource description
and access). Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 9(1), 13-34.
doi:10.1080/15424065.2012.651573
Kurtz, M. (2010). Dublin core, DSpace, and a brief analysis of three university
repositories. Information Technology and Libraries, 29(1), 40-46.
Lanzi, E. (2004). Cataloguing cultural objects: New guidelines for descriptive cataloging.
Art Libraries Journal, 29(4), 26-32.
Lanzi, E., & McRae, L. (2007). Cataloging cultural objects: Community building through
standards. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 34(1), 15-19.
Lopatin, L. (2010). Metadata practices in academic and non-academic libraries for digital
projects: A survey. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(8), 716-742.
doi:10.1080/01639374.2010.509029
Mitchell, E. T. (2013). Metadata developments in libraries and other cultural heritage
institutions. Library Technology Reports, 49(5), 5-10.
Network Development and MARC Standards Office. (2013A). Bibliographic framework
initiative. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/
O'Keefe, E. (2007). The best of both worlds: Using CCO for object cataloging in libraries
and special collections. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 34(1), 86-96.
Olson, N. B. (2000). Cataloging three-dimensional artifacts and realia. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 31(3), 139-150.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 18
Park, J. (2009). Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of
the art. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(3), 213-228.
Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010A). Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and
collections: Schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. Information
Technology and Libraries, 29(3), 104-116.
Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010B). Metadata quality control in digital repositories and
collections: Criteria, semantics, and mechanisms. Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly, 48(8), 696-715.
Picco, P. & Ortiz Repiso, V. (2012). The contribution of FRBR to the identification of
bibliographic relationships: The new RDA-based ways of representing
relationships in catalogs. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 622-
640. doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.680847
Tani, A., Candela, L., & Castelli, D. (2013). Dealing with metadata quality: The legacy
of digital library efforts. Information Processing & Management, 49(6), 1194.
Tillett, B. B. (2003). AACR2 and metadata: Library opportunities in the global semantic
web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 36(3-4), 101-119.
doi:10.1300/J104v36n03_09
Visual Resources Association. (2006). CCO Commons: Cataloging cultural objects.
Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://cco.vrafoundation.org/
Whiteside, A. B. (2005). Cataloguing cultural objects: New descriptive cataloguing
guidelines for the cultural heritage community. Art Documentation: Bulletin of
the Art Libraries Society of North America, 24(2), 16-18.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 19
For Appendices A, B, and C: Complete Records: See the separate file named
mellendorf_assign3_appendices.pdf or mellendorf_assign3_appendices.doc
Appendix D: Additional Works Consulted
Alemu, G., Stevens, B., Ross, P., & Chandler, J. (2012). Linked data for libraries:
Benefits of a conceptual shift from library-specific record structures to RDF-
based data models. New Library World, 113(11), 549-570.
doi:10.1108/03074801211282920
American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals. (2010). RDA Toolkit. Retrieved October
15, 2013, from http://access.rdatoolkit.org/
Babinec, M. S., & Mercer, H. (2009). Introduction: Metadata and open access
repositories. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(3-4), 209-212.
doi:10.1080/01639370902740301
Beacom, Matthew. (2007). Cataloging cultural objects (CCO), Resource description and
access (RDA), and the future of metadata content. Visual Resources Association
Bulletin, 34(1), 81-85.
Bierbaum, E. G. (1988). Teaching the cataloging of three-dimensional objects. Journal of
Education for Library & Information Science, 29, 3-14. doi:10.2307/40323580
Bierbaum, E. G. (1989). Beyond print: Object collections in academic libraries.
Collection Building, 10(1-2), 7-11.
Cole, T. W., Han, M., Weathers, W. F., & Joyner, E. (2013). Library marc records into
linked open data: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Library Metadata,
13(2-3), 163-196. doi:10.1080/19386389.2013.826074
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 20
Coleman, A. S. (2005). From cataloging to metadata: Dublin core records for the library
catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3-4), 153-181.
doi:10.1300/J104v40n03_08
Dunsire, G., Hillmann, D., & Phipps, J. (2012). Reconsidering universal bibliographic
control in light of the semantic web. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2), 164-176.
doi:10.1080/19386389.2012.699831
Greenberg, J. (2005). Understanding metadata and metadata schemes. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 40(3-4), 17-36. doi:10.1300/J104v40n03_02
Greenberg, J. (2007). Advancing the semantic web via library functions. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 43(3-4), 203-225. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_11
Greenberg, J., & Méndez, E. (2007). Introduction: Toward a more library-like web via
semantic knitting. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(3-4), 1-8.
doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_a
Guns, R. (2013). Tracing the origins of the semantic web. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science & Technology, 64(10), 2173-2181.
doi:10.1002/asi.22907
Harper, C. A., & Tillett, B. B. (2007). Library of congress controlled vocabularies and
their application to the semantic web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
43(3-4), 47-68. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_03
Miller, E. (1998). An introduction to the resource description framework. American
Society for Information Science. Bulletin of the American Society for Information
Science, 25(1), 15-19.
METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3
Mellendorf 21
Moore, M. (2012). The semantic web: An introduction for information professionals.
Indexer, 30(1), 38-43.
Myntti, J., & Cothran, N. (2013). Authority control in a digital repository: Preparing for
linked data. Journal of Library Metadata, 13(2-3), 95-113.
doi:10.1080/19386389.2013.826061
Network Development and MARC Standards Office. (2013B). MARC standards.
Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/marc/
RDA and the semantic web. (2008). Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 45(4), 108-
109.
RDA in RDF. (2010). Library Technology Reports, 46(2), 26-36.
Seadle, M. (2013). Archiving in the networked world: Resource description framework.
Library Hi Tech, 31(1), 182-188. doi:10.1108/07378831311304010
Taniguchi, S. (2013). Understanding RDA as a DC application profile. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 51(6), 601-623.
Wacker, M., Han, M., & Dartt, J. (2011). Testing resource description and access (RDA)
with non-MARC metadata standards. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,
49(7-8), 655-675. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616451
Yee, M. M. (2009). Can bibliographic data be put directly onto the semantic web?
Information Technology and Libraries, 28(2), 55-80.