Metadata for Asset Management

1. Metadata for Asset Management Peter B. Hirtle Co-Director Cornell Institute for Digital Collections

2. Problem: Imaging projects produce many digital files

4. Problem redux… How to you locate, manage, and display scanned images?

5. One possible answer: • Put identifying information into the file header • Problems with this approach • Hard to search and retrieve • May change over time • May not be able to migrate data

6. Second approach Use an image management system to manage images: A software application (often a database) used for organizing, managing, and providing access to digital media

7. Image management system • Provides tools for searching (Descriptive metadata) • Provides public and internal links to the images (Structural metadata) • Provides the control elements needed for short and long-term access (administrative metadata)

8. Metadata for image management • No single accepted standards for each type of metadata • Descriptive metadata • MARC, DC, MOA2, EAD, VRA, Open Archives Initiative • Structural metadata • LC RFP’s, MOA2, DOIs • Administrative metadata • DIG 35, NISO draft standard, MOA2, in process preservation standards such as CEDARS

9. Key concept: metadata is seldom fixed You will be massaging the metadata throughout the life of the project • To conform to emerging standards • To adjust to new technical environments • To add functionality Once you start a digital project, you are committed to it for life

10. So where do you get an image management solution? • No single off the shelf solution • Solutions vary according to: • complexity • performance • cost

11. What is the “ideal solution”…? • Dependent upon your needs: • size of database • expected demand for images • volatility of the data • available technical resources

12. Other elements to consider.... • Access to a controlled thesaurus • Flexibility in database design • The expected life-span of the data • If permanent, the potential for migration • Adherence to database standards • Adherence to data content standards

13. Three classes of solutions • Generic database applications • Desktop • Client/server • Specialized image management programs • SGML-based solutions

14. Generic database applications • Most common desktop programs • MS Access, Filemaker Pro • Client/server applications • Oracle, Informix (including Illustra), 4th Dimension, object-oriented applications

15. Demo Here

16. Advantages to desktop programs • Low initial cost for desktop programs • Desktop programs are relatively easy to program and use • Simple data import and export • Growing 3rd-party market of add-ons (especially web tools)

17. Disadvantages • Desktop solutions limited in size (< 10,000?) • Few standardized data structures • Web interfaces require customization • High costs of programming • explicit with large applications • hidden but real with desktop

18. Specialized image management programs • “Desktop” examples: • Canto’s Cumulus http://www.canto-software.com/ • ImageAXS http://www.dascorp.com • Portfolio (formerly Fetch) http://www.extensis.com/products/Portfolio/ • Content (shown here)

19. Advantages • Pre-defined data structure • Built-in links to images • Some are cross-platform • Some have built-in links to the web • Overall, less programming expertise required

20. Disadvantages • Fixed data structure • Proprietary database structures • Limited customization possible • Web access is primarily via scripts

21. Larger client/server image management programs • Library software • Museum-oriented programs • Document management programs • Digital library solutions • Other programs for newspaper photos, stock photos, multimedia asset management, etc.

22. Library systems • Image-enabled library catalogs include • VTLS • CARL • OCLC Sitesearch • Endeavor’s Voyager and ENCOMPASS • RLG has a system in development • All library systems will head in this direction

23. Advantages • Ready links between catalog and digital images • Built on common data structures • MARC or Dublin Core • Increased likelihood they will exploit library-specific metadata • Greater possibility for shared resources

24. Disadvantages • Poor integration between images and text • No common repository standard • No shared standard for utilizing metadata • Administrative hurdles • Do digital imaging and Library Systems talk to each other?

25. SGML and XML-based systems • A new approach: using metadata encoded with SGML or XML • Based on document type definitions (DTD) • Examples: • Photographs using EAD: California Heritage project • Text using Ebind (electronic binding DTD) • Agora’s complete management system

26. Why consider SGML? • Based on an international standard • DTD’s may themselves become standard • Example: MOA2 • May be more appropriate for text-oriented description • Links to other SGML or XML-encoded resources are possible

27. Disadvantages to SGML • Little native client support for SGML • SGML engines may not be as powerful as relational databases • XML databases are just being developed • Native SGML software tends to be expensive • Often it is easier to store data in a database, and write it out with SGML XML tags for exchange or export

28. Summary • No single imagebase package is likely to meet all your needs • Plan on continuously modifying databases, interfaces, and metadata • Monitor closely the work developing image database standards in the area of greatest interest to you • Avoid if possible the hidden costs of internal development