1 / 26

Summary of the Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for Korean E-Resources

Summary of the Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for Korean E-Resources . Miree Ku, Duke University March 25, 2014. Summary of the Survey (1). 6 major Korean vendors participated m ainly Vendor/Provider/Aggregator Most of them provide

rangle
Download Presentation

Summary of the Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for Korean E-Resources

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. Summary of the Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for Korean E-Resources Miree Ku, Duke University March 25, 2014

  2. Summary of the Survey (1) • 6 major Korean vendors participated • mainly Vendor/Provider/Aggregator • Most of them provide • full-text databases, e-books and streaming media • Korean resources • metadata regarding title lists for non-index and non-reference packages/databases • author/issuing organization, dates of publication, series title, publishers, edition information, table of contents, page and volume information besides current titles and URL • Metadata by email upon request

  3. Summary of the Survey (2) • Most of them provide • link resolution services with title lists with or without fee / upon request • updated title lists to link resolution services • Any of them was not aware of established standards and best practices on e-resources • Most of them wish to get information

  4. Summary of the Survey (3) • Some of them follow • Other classification • Open URL • ISSN, ISBN, ISRC • DOI, DDC • Some of them are interested in • Open URL • Other subject headings • DOI, DDC, MARC21, AACR2

  5. Business Type

  6. Length in the Electronic Resources Industry • 0-5 years: 2 (33%) • 6-10 years: 0 (0%) • 11-15 years: 2 (33%) • over 16 years: 2 (33%)

  7. Types of e-resources primarily provided

  8. Languages of the e-resources primarily provided

  9. Metadata service for non-index (non-bibliographic) and non-reference packages/databases of e-books, e-journals, streaming media, maps, (1)

  10. Metadata service for non-index (non-bibliographic) and non-reference packages/databases of e-books, e-journals, streaming media, maps, (2) • The followings were not provided by survey participants. • Free brief MARC records • Fee-based brief MARC records • Free full-level MARC records  • Fee-based full-level MARC records • Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service • URL checking service • An automatic mechanism that facilitates easy online error report and instant fix on access and metadata problems

  11. What metadata do you provide besides current title and URL? (1)

  12. What metadata do you provide besides current title and URL? (2)

  13. How often do you supply metadata (title list, MARC records, etc.)?

  14. What tracking metadata do you provide in response to changes in titles, publication patterns, and relationships between parties?

  15. How do you distribute the metadata?

  16. What relationship do you have with link resolution services?

  17. How often do you regularly provide updated title lists to link resolution services?

  18. Are you aware that there are established national and international standards and best practices for describing electronic resources ?

  19. What standards and best practices do you currently follow when supplying metadata? (1)

  20. What standards and best practices do you currently follow when supplying metadata? (2)

  21. What standards and best practices would you be interested in following? (1)

  22. What standards and best practices would you be interested in following?(2)

  23. Why does your company choose not to comply with some or all of the standards and best practices?

  24. Suggestion from survey participants • Difficulties on providing titles in English or Romanization • Titles should be transliterated (romanized) or translated into English prior to process any standards and/or best practices • Difficulties on providing MARC format to libraries • Willing to provide standard MARC records of Web DB products or e-books to libraries, but…. • Provide customized MARC records since each library requests different MARC field according to their library system or needs

  25. Epilogue: vendors’ stance • E-resource vendors create and distribute XML files to Link Resolution Services (ex. Ex libris, Proquest, Ebsco, OCLC) • Field names of XML file are not standardized • Vendors use sample format provided by Link Resolution Services to create XML file • Limited few Metadata items included • Vendor’s improvement efforts (currently underway) • Change XML format in order to avoid a dominate-subordinate relationship between them and provide the same format to each Link Resolution Services • Include metadata items as many as possible • Link Resolution Services do not accept these new format yet due to their technical system • Vendor’s future plans • Provide standardized metadata such as Dublin Core etc • Issues • Which kind of metadata standards should be considered for the best practices • How can we cover additional expenses for system change and lack of manpower

  26. Consideration • Mutual Understanding • Communication • Cooperation

More Related