1 / 14

Enhancing Metadata for Improved Access: University of Michigan's IMLS Grant

The University of Michigan's IMLS grant focuses on enriching metadata, establishing best practices, and improving interface design for DLF member portals. The project aims to enhance metadata records and facilitate seamless integration and search functionalities. Key initiatives include modifying interfaces, testing with user groups, and exploring different metadata formats. Future plans involve incorporating new functionalities, implementing date normalization, and creating a repository registry. Contact Kat Hagedorn at khage@umich.edu for more information.

pamelawilson
Download Presentation

Enhancing Metadata for Improved Access: University of Michigan's IMLS Grant

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IMLS Grant: University of Michigan’s Role Kat Hagedorn khage@umich.edu 11/08/2005

  2. Our parts of the IMLS grant • Richer metadata, e.g., MODS, MARC, extended DC • Best practices - for metadata creation and data implementation (currently) • Collection level description - for clustering analysis, for integration with search and registry • Interface changes - big and small

  3. Portals • Portal #1: DLF members’ metadata records • 43 institutions; over 880K records • http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?c=imls;page=simple • Portal #2: DLF members’ MODS metadata records • http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/mods/ • 4 institutions (LOC, Indiana, OCLC, UIC); over 330K records

  4. Portal #1: DLF members

  5. Portal #2: MODS records

  6. Portal #2: MODS records

  7. Portal #1: DLF members: results

  8. Portal #2: MODS records: results

  9. Portal #1: DLF members: results

  10. Portal #2: MODS records: results

  11. Use of portals • Test portals with Scholar’s Advisory Group (and users) • Which portals should be maintained? • Which functionality should be integrated? • How integrate different metadata formats? • How integrate collection level descriptions: item or set level?

  12. Next steps: soon • Interface tweaks: ex. listing subject vocabularies used • Metadata mapping tweaks: ex. separate fields for each separate hierarchical subject value in MODS • Functionality: ex. Boolean in one search box • Testing Emory’s clustering tool in conjunction with UIUC’s collection-description-added repository registry

  13. Next steps: bigger • Thumbnail grabber: include thumbnails in results, as in CIC Portal • Date normalization • Create our own MODS metadata as a DP • Make metadata downloadable from portal

  14. Questions • Kat Hagedorn • khage@umich.edu • University of Michigan, Digital Library Production Service • www.oaister.org • www.dlxs.org • www.umdl.umich.edu

More Related