Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Non-MARC Metadata Options for Discovery
Semelhante a Non-MARC Metadata Options for Discovery (20)
Mais de Jenn Riley
Mais de Jenn Riley (20)
Último
Último (20)
Non-MARC Metadata Options for Discovery
- 1. Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive Metadata Jenn Riley TS Cataloging Division Meeting 12/9/2008
- 2. Good metadata… • Is fit for purpose • Conforms to accepted standards and/or best practices • Doesn’t have to be created by humans 12/9/2008 2 TS Cataloging Division
- 3. 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 12/9/2008 3 TS Cataloging Division
- 4. 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 12/9/2008 4 TS Cataloging Division
- 5. Some descriptive metadata structure standards • MARC in XML (MARCXML) • Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) • Dublin Core (DC) ▫ Unqualified (simple) ▫ Qualified 12/9/2008 5 TS Cataloging Division
- 6. 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 12/9/2008 6 TS Cataloging Division
- 7. Limitations of MARCXML • Not appropriate for direct data entry • Extremely verbose syntax • Full content validation requires tools external to XML Schema conformance 12/9/2008 7 TS Cataloging Division
- 8. 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 12/9/2008 8 TS Cataloging Division
- 9. MARCXML example 12/9/2008TS Cataloging Division 9
- 10. 12/9/2008 10 TS Cataloging Division MARCXML MODS DC QDC Record format XML Field labels Numeric Reliance on AACR Strong Common method of creation By derivation
- 11. 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 12/9/2008 11 TS Cataloging Division
- 12. 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 12/9/2008 12 TS Cataloging Division
- 13. 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 12/9/2008 13 TS Cataloging Division
- 14. 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 12/9/2008 14 TS Cataloging Division
- 15. 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 12/9/2008 15 TS Cataloging Division
- 16. MODS example 12/9/2008TS Cataloging Division 16
- 17. 12/9/2008 17 TS Cataloging Division MARCXML MODS DC QDC Record format XML XML Field labels Numeric Text Reliance on AACR Strong Implied Common method of creation By derivation By specialists and by derivation
- 18. 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 12/9/2008 18 TS Cataloging Division
- 19. 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 12/9/2008 19 TS Cataloging Division
- 20. DC Principles • “Core” across all knowledge domains • No element required • All elements repeatable • 1:1 principle 12/9/2008 20 TS Cataloging Division
- 21. DC encodings • HTML <meta> • XML • RDF • [Spreadsheets] • [Databases] 12/9/2008 21 TS Cataloging Division
- 22. Content/value standards for DC • None required • Some elements recommend a content or value standard as a best practice Coverage Date Format Language Identifier 12/9/2008 22 TS Cataloging Division Relation Source Subject Type
- 23. 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 12/9/2008 23 TS Cataloging Division
- 24. Good times to use DC • Cross-collection searching • Cross-domain discovery • Metadata sharing • Describing some types of simple resources • Metadata creation by novices 12/9/2008 24 TS Cataloging Division
- 25. Simple DC example 12/9/2008TS Cataloging Division 25
- 26. 12/9/2008 26 TS Cataloging Division MARCXML MODS DC QDC Record format XML XML XML RDF (X)HTML Field labels Numeric Text Text Reliance on AACR Strong Implied None Common method of creation By derivation By specialists and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation
- 27. 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 12/9/2008 27 TS Cataloging Division
- 28. Types of DC qualifiers • Additional elements • Element refinements • Encoding schemes ▫ Vocabulary encoding schemes ▫ Syntax encoding schemes 12/9/2008 28 TS Cataloging Division
- 29. 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 12/9/2008 29 TS Cataloging Division
- 30. 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 12/9/2008 30 TS Cataloging Division
- 31. Qualified DC example 12/9/2008TS Cataloging Division 31
- 32. 12/9/2008 32 TS Cataloging Division MARCXML MODS DC QDC Record format XML XML XML RDF (X)HTML XML RDF (X)HTML Field labels Numeric Text Text Text Reliance on AACR Strong Implied None None Common method of creation By derivation By specialists and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation By novices, by specialists, and by derivation
- 33. Some other options 12/9/2008 33 TS Cataloging Division • VRA Core • Darwin Core • FGDC • ETD-MS • Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP) • Collection Description Application Profile • …
- 34. 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 12/9/2008 34 TS Cataloging Division
- 35. No, really, how do I pick one? • Every implementation is a compromise • Balance ▫ Innovation and production ▫ Robustness and expediency ▫ Ideal and ease technical implementation 12/9/2008TS Cataloging Division 35
Notas do Editor
- Extensibility: via Application Profiles and local qualifiers. Local qualifiers maybe not kosher but there are no metadata police. Usually.