360 likes | 465 Views
Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive Metadata. Jenn Riley TS Cataloging Division Meeting 12/9/2008. Good metadata…. Is fit for purpose Conforms to accepted standards and/or best practices Doesn’t have to be created by humans. Metadata formats.
E N D
Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive Metadata Jenn Riley TS Cataloging Division Meeting 12/9/2008
TS Cataloging Division Good metadata… • Is fit for purpose • Conforms to accepted standards and/or best practices • Doesn’t have to be created by humans
TS Cataloging Division Metadata formats • Predefined sets of features likely to be necessary or useful for a specific purpose • Choosing a format others also use improves interoperability • Can be: • Official standards • Backed by professional organization • Backed by trusted institution • Locally developed
TS Cataloging Division Descriptive metadata • For discovery • Includes both search and browse • In a controlled environment designed to match target users with interesting resources • Pushed out to the network for others to make use of • For display • Gives a user the context they need to understand a resource • Can be both objective and subjective • Usually (but not always) human-generated
TS Cataloging Division Some descriptive metadata structure standards • MARC in XML (MARCXML) • Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) • Dublin Core (DC) • Unqualified (simple) • Qualified
TS Cataloging Division MARC in XML (MARCXML) • Copies the exact structure of MARC21 in an XML syntax • Numeric fields • Alphabetic subfields • Implicit assumption that content/value standards are the same as in MARC
TS Cataloging Division Limitations of MARCXML • Not appropriate for direct data entry • Extremely verbose syntax • Full content validation requires tools external to XML Schema conformance
TS Cataloging Division Best times to use MARCXML • As a transition format between a MARC record and another XML-encoded metadata format • Materials lend themselves to library-type description • Want to follow library cataloging traditions • Want XML representation to store within larger digital object but need lossless conversion to MARC
TS Cataloging Division MARCXML example
TS Cataloging Division Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) • Developed and managed by the Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office • First released for trial use June 2002 • MODS 3.3 released January 2008 • For encoding bibliographic information • Influenced by MARC, but not equivalent • Quickly gaining adoption
TS Cataloging Division Differences between MODS and MARC • MODS is “MARC-like” but intended to be simpler • Textual tag names • Encoded in XML • Some specific changes • Some regrouping of elements • Removes some elements • Adds some elements
TS Cataloging Division Content/value standards for MODS • Many elements indicate a given content/value standard should be used • Generally follows MARC/AACR2/ISBD conventions • But not all enforced by the MODS XML schema • Authority attribute available on many elements • Not limited to data elements AACR2 controls • MODS User Guidelines recommend vocabularies for many elements
TS Cataloging Division Limitations of MODS • No lossless round-trip conversion from and to MARC • Still largely implemented by library community only • Tools for creation only recently starting to emerge
TS Cataloging Division Good times to use MODS • Materials lend themselves to library-type description • Want to reach both library and non-library audiences • Need a reasonable level of robustness • Want XML representation to store within larger digital object
TS Cataloging Division MODS example
TS Cataloging Division Unqualified (Simple) Dublin Core • 15-element set • National and international standard • 2001: Released as ANSI/NISO Z39.85 • 2003: Released as ISO 15836 • Maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) • Other players • DCMI Communities • DCMI Task Groups • DCMI Usage Board • DCMI Advisory Board
TS Cataloging Division DCMI mission • [promote] the widespread adoption of interoperable metadata standards and developing specialized metadata vocabularies for describing resources that enable more intelligent information discovery systems. • The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative provides simple standards to facilitate the finding, sharing and management of information. DCMI does this by: • Developing and maintaining international standards for describing resources • Supporting a worldwide community of users and developers • Promoting widespread use of Dublin Core solutions
TS Cataloging Division DC Principles • “Core” across all knowledge domains • No element required • All elements repeatable • 1:1 principle
TS Cataloging Division DC encodings • HTML <meta> • XML • RDF • [Spreadsheets] • [Databases]
None required Some elements recommend a content or value standard as a best practice TS Cataloging Division Content/value standards for DC • Coverage • Date • Format • Language • Identifier • Relation • Source • Subject • Type
TS Cataloging Division Some limitations of DC • Widely misunderstood • Can’t indicate a main title vs. other subordinate titles • No method for specifying creator roles • W3CDTF format can’t indicate date ranges or uncertainty • Can’t by itself provide robust record relationships
TS Cataloging Division Good times to use DC • Cross-collection searching • Cross-domain discovery • Metadata sharing • Describing some types of simple resources • Metadata creation by novices
TS Cataloging Division Simple DC example
TS Cataloging Division Qualified Dublin Core (QDC) • Adds some increased specificity to Unqualified Dublin Core • Same governance structure as DC • Same encodings as DC • Same content/value standards as DC • Listed in DMCI Terms • Additional principles • Extensibility • Dumb-down principle
TS Cataloging Division Types of DC qualifiers • Additional elements • Element refinements • Encoding schemes • Vocabulary encoding schemes • Syntax encoding schemes
TS Cataloging Division Limitations of QDC • Widely misunderstood • No method for specifying creator roles • W3CDTF format can’t indicate date ranges or uncertainty • Split across 3 XML schemas • No encoding in XML officially endorsed by DCMI
TS Cataloging Division Best times to use QDC • More specificity needed than simple DC, but not a fundamentally different approach to description • Want to share DC with others, but need a few extensions for your local environment • Describing some types of simple resources • Metadata creation by novices
TS Cataloging Division Qualified DC example
Some other options 33 TS Cataloging Division 12/9/2008 • VRA Core • Darwin Core • FGDC • ETD-MS • Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP) • Collection Description Application Profile • …
TS Cataloging Division How do I pick one? • Robustness needed for the given materials and users • Genre/format of materials being described • Nature of holding institution • Use and audience for the metadata • What others in the community are doing • Describing analog vs. digitized item • Mechanisms for providing relationships between records • Plan for interoperability, including repeatability of elements • Formats supported by your metadata creation and delivery software
TS Cataloging Division No, really, how do I pick one? • Every implementation is a compromise • Balance • Innovation and production • Robustness and expediency • Ideal and ease technical implementation
TS Cataloging Division Thanks. Slides at: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/tscatdiv2008/tsCatalogingDivisionDec2008.ppt>