Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive Metadata

1. Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive Metadata Jenn Riley TS Cataloging Division Meeting 12/9/2008

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. TS Cataloging Division Some descriptive metadata structure standards • MARC in XML (MARCXML) • Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) • Dublin Core (DC) • Unqualified (simple) • Qualified

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. TS Cataloging Division MARCXML example

10. TS Cataloging Division

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. TS Cataloging Division MODS example

17. TS Cataloging Division

18. 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

19. 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

20. TS Cataloging Division DC Principles • “Core” across all knowledge domains • No element required • All elements repeatable • 1:1 principle

21. TS Cataloging Division DC encodings • HTML <meta> • XML • RDF • [Spreadsheets] • [Databases]

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. TS Cataloging Division Simple DC example

26. TS Cataloging Division

27. 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

28. TS Cataloging Division Types of DC qualifiers • Additional elements • Element refinements • Encoding schemes • Vocabulary encoding schemes • Syntax encoding schemes

29. 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

30. 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

31. TS Cataloging Division Qualified DC example

32. TS Cataloging Division

33. 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 • …

34. 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

35. 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

36. TS Cataloging Division Thanks. Slides at: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/tscatdiv2008/tsCatalogingDivisionDec2008.ppt>