Riley, Jenn

English

IUScholarWorks

The Standards Paradox: Case 
Studies in Conforming to or 
Abandoning Metadata Standards
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 2
The problem
“Standards are like 
toothbrushes, everyone 
agrees that they’re a 
good idea but nobody 
wants to use anyone 
else’s.” *
* I heard this from Murtha Baca at the Getty, but she got it from someone else…
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 3
Seriously, though…
 We have to make decisions about how to represent 
metadata internally in our systems
 We all have our own unique needs
 Every collection/project is different
 One solution does not fit all
HOWEVER, we cannot afford to make a new solution 
from scratch for every new pool of content.
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 4
What are metadata standards for?
 Interoperability
 Providing clear representations of conceptual 
models
 Reminding you of the sorts of things you 
ought to record 
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 5
How do metadata standards differ?
 Underlying conceptual model
 Focus of description
 Analog vs. digital
 Intellectual content vs. carrier
 Use of data
 Discovery
 Description
 Interpretation
 etc…
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 6
Benefits of using standards internally
 Fewer decisions to make (but far from none)
 Some expectation of interoperability (but far 
from assured)
 Less risk you’re forgetting something 
important
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 7
Drawbacks of using standards 
internally
 Usually have to be creative with 
implementation
 Little room for growth of functionality over 
time
 Standards evolve over time – you either get 
behind or have to repeatedly upgrade
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 8
Benefits of designing your own 
metadata structures
 You get to do it the way you want!
 Can more easily meet the unique needs of a 
particular set of materials or user base
 Can take shortcuts
 Multiple versions
 Combining different types of metadata
 (And it’s fun to design new things.)
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 9
Drawbacks of designing your own 
metadata structures
 Still need to support standards in some way
 Must write mappings to standard formats
 Have to upgrade export mechanisms whenever 
target standards change
 Conceptual model underlying your 
implementation may not match target export 
standards, making mapping difficult
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 10
Scope of today’s discussion
 Focus is on descriptive metadata structure 
standards
 The same principles would apply to other 
types of metadata
 Other purposes – technical, structural, etc.
 Other levels – controlled vocabularies, etc.
Variations2/3
From local model to standard model
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 12
 Research project funded by NSF and NEH
 Variations2 expanded on existing system by:
 expanding representations of music in other media: 
score images, encoded scores
 creating additional metadata and new software 
tools for enhanced searching, synchronization, and 
navigation
 creating tools for pedagogical use
Variations2 (2000-2005)
slide courtesy of Jon Dunn, DLP
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 13
Variations2 architecture (2005)
Collection
Metadata
Access
Control,
Bookmarks
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
u
s
e
r
 
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
u
s
e
r
s
digitized audio     scanned scores     encoded scores
faculty                   students                   librarians
slide courtesy of Jon Dunn, DLP
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 14
Work-based metadata model
 Developed in 2001
 Data model and cataloging guidelines 
developed locally specifically for the project
 Decision to develop locally stemmed from 
need to “bind” any recording to any score of 
the same Work easily
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 15
is represented by
MEDIA OBJECT represents a piece of digital media content (e.g., sound file, 
score image)
is enclosed in
CONTAINER represents the physical item or set of items on which one or 
more instantiations of works 
can be found (e.g., CD, score)
is manifested in
INSTANTIATION represents a manifestation of a work as a recorded 
performance or a score
WORK represents the abstract conceptof a musical composition or 
set of compositions
Current locally-designed model
is created by
CONTRIBUTOR
represents people or 
groups that contribute 
to a work, instantiation, 
or container
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 16
Broder,
editor 
Prepared from 
autographs in 1960
Mozart,
composer
Fantasia K.397Sonata K. 279
Horowitz, 
pianist
Uchida,
pianist
Sonata K. 279
recorded in 1965, 
Carnegie Hall
Fantasia K.397
recorded in 1991, 
Tokyo, Suntory Hall 
INSTANTIATIONS
V2 Data Model: Example
CONTAINERS
WORKS
CONTRIBUTORS
CD
Mozart, Piano Works
Score
Mozart, Piano Fantasia K.397
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 17
Mapping from MARC/AACR2
 Different conceptual model is a challenge
 V2 = work is focus of description
 MARC/AACR2 = publication/release is focus of 
description
 V2 record creation process starts with import from 
MARC bibliographic records
 MARC authority records imported for automatically 
recognized or cataloger-identified Works
 Cataloger manually creates Instantiations of Works, 
enhances data to fit V2 model
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 18
Variations3 (2005-2008/9)
 Funded by a three year IMLS National Leadership Grant
 Indiana University:
 Digital Library Program
 Cook Music Library
 Partners:
 University of Maryland
 Tri-College Consortium: Haverford, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr
 New England Conservatory
 The Ohio State University
 New York University / New World Records
Database of Recorded American Music
slide courtesy of Jon Dunn, DLP
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 19
 Transform Variations2 into a system that can be 
deployed by variety of institutions
 Add access to licensed music content in addition to 
locally digitized content
 Continue to explore improved searching and 
browsing capabilities through a new 
metadata/cataloging model
 Develop an organizational model for sustaining the 
software into the future
slide courtesy of Jon Dunn, DLP
Variations3 goals
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 20
FRBR as an alternative model
 “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic 
Records”
 1998 report from IFLA
 Conceptual model describing the entities and 
relationships underlying bibliographic information
 Only recently gaining real traction
 Open WorldCat is semi-FRBRized
 New RDA content standard will be based on FRBR 
principles
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 21
FRBR Group 1 entities
WORK
EXPRESSION
MANIFESTATION
ITEM
is realized through
is exemplified by
“the physical embodiment of an expression of a work”
“the intellectual or artistic realization of a work”“a distinct intellectual or artistic creation”
“a single exemplar of a manifestation”
w1 Franz Schubert's Trout quintet
-e1 the composer's score
-e2 a performance by the Amadeus 
Quartet and Hephzibah Menuhin on 
piano
-e3 a performance by the Cleveland 
Quartet and Yo-Yo Ma on the cello
-. . . .
w1 Harry Lindgren's Geometric dissections
-e1 original text entitled Geometric     
dissections
-m1 the book published in 1964 by Van 
Nostrand
-e2 revised text entitled Recreational 
problems in geometric dissections .... 
-m1 the book published in 1972 by 
Dover
w1 Ronald Hayman's Playback
-e1 the author's text edited for 
publication
-m1 the book published in 1973 by 
D vis-Poynter
-i1 copy autographed by the 
author
is embodied in
FRBR Group 2 
entities
FRBR Group 3 
entities
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 24
V3 vs. FRBR – loose mapping
Variations2 Entity FRBR Group 
1 Entity
Work
(more concrete than FRBR Work)
Work
Instantiation
(can only appear on one Container)
Expression
Container
(includes some copy-specific data)
Manifestation
Media Object
(defined as a digital file)
Item
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 25
Possible benefits of moving to FRBR
 Improve system sustainability
 Better integration with future catalogs
 More easily support cooperative cataloging
 Get some other features of the model “free”
 Group 2 and 3 entities
 User tasks
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 26
Possible drawbacks of moving to 
FRBR
 No approved binding of FRBR conceptual 
model to a true data structure exists
 Unclear what it means to be “FRBR compliant”
 We’d have to make up our own data structure 
based on the standard conceptual model
 Our current model is so close to FRBR, it is 
unclear if the benefits will outweigh the costs
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 27
Current status of switch
 FRBR modeling documentation created
 Report on applying FRBR to music
 Data dictionary (draft)
 Schema (draft)
 Switch still in proposal stage
 Advisors believe it’s a good idea
 We don’t know if we have time to implement it as part of 
current project
 Still undecided as to how to model non-musical 
content
EVIADA
From standard model to local model
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 29
EVIADA project
 Ethnographic (formerly Ethnomusicological) Video 
for Instruction and Analysis Digital Archive
 Mellon-funded partnership between IU and 
University of Michigan
 Goals
 Preserve field video currently stored on researchers’
shelves
 Provide access to content of field video for teaching and 
research
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 30
EVIADA timeline
 Phased development
 Planning Phase 2001 – 2002
 Development Phase 2003 – 2005
 Sustainability Phase 2006 - 2009
 Metadata model designed and implemented 
during Development Phase
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 31
EVIADA conceptual model
slide courtesy of Will Cowan, EVIADA project
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 32
EVIADA metadata creation
 Collection-level MARC record created based 
on researcher-provided information
 Technical and digital provenance metadata 
captured during digitization/transfer process
 Researchers annotate their own video, 
segmenting into events, scenes, actions
 Extended descriptions
 Controlled vocabulary in specified categories
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 33
Original metadata model
 MODS descriptive metadata
 Forthcoming AES audio technical metadata 
 Slightly revised version of LC video technical 
metadata 
 Forthcoming AES process history (digiprov) 
metadata 
 METS wrapper
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 34
Use of MODS
 One MODS record for each:
 collection
 event
 scene
 action
 Potentially hundreds of MODS records for 
each collection
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 35
Challenges for MODS
 Much information inherited from event to 
scene to action
 Annotation information is generally more 
free-form than expected in a structured 
bibliographic metadata standard
 EVIA controlled vocabulary categories didn’t 
match MODS “subject” elements
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 36
New required functionality stretched 
MODS usage too far
 Text formatting
 lists
 paragraphs
 Glossary
 Bibliography
 Video technical problems
 Transcriptions
 Translations
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 37
New internal descriptive model
 More naturally matches data as it is 
recorded by annotators
 Hierarchical collection/event/scene/action
 Goes beyond “bibliographic” information
 timecodes
 text markup
 internal linking
 Still stores technical and process history 
metadata in standard formats
 Could export any needed combination of 
descriptive and technical/process history 
metadata together in a single METS 
wrapper
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 38
Also provide standard representation
 Designed for sharing, not internal representation; 
therefore can afford to leave things out
 EAD
 hierarchical, for sharing with archives, although 
event/scene/action not the normal hierarchy
 one document has entire collection hierarchy
 MODS
 for sharing with libraries
 record can be generated for collection, event, scene, 
action on demand
Lessons learned
Or, so, now what?
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 40
Let’s be frank
In an environment like IU, there will never be 
one single solution, even for a relatively narrow 
class of material
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 41
Assessing standards
 Clearly define functional requirements – what 
functions does your descriptive metadata need 
to support?
 The functional requirements suggest a certain 
conceptual model to underlie your metadata
 Compare existing descriptive metadata 
structure standards against your functional 
requirements and conceptual model
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 42
Good practice
 Use a standard internally whenever it meets 
defined functional requirements
 When you do choose to develop locally, take 
as much inspiration as you can from 
published standards
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 43
The increasing role of conceptual 
modeling
 Trend is toward clearer conceptual models, 
e.g., DCMI Abstract Model, RDA
 Will likely result in better interoperability 
among metadata standards
 Result may be conformance to conceptual 
models becomes more important than 
conformance to metadata structure standards
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 44
The bottom line
 Every collection/project needs a clearly defined 
metadata model
 Don’t just follow standards and guidelines –
understand them
 Must have the capability to generate standards-
compliant metadata for specific purposes
 Internal metadata format almost unimportant if it 
meets these requirements
10/31/07 DL Brown Bag Series 45
For more information
 These presentation slides:
<http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/bbfall07
/standards/standardsParadox.ppt>
 “Shareable” metadata
 OAI Best Practices for Shareable Metadata
<http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/mediawiki/oaibp/index.php/
ShareableMetadataPublic>
 Metadata for You & Me
<http://images.library.uiuc.edu/projects/mym/>
 EVIADA <http://www.indiana.edu/~eviada/>
 Variations3 
<http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/variations3/>


The Standards Paradox: Case studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/2022/16517/2/standardsParadox.pdf

The Standards Paradox: Case studies in Conforming to or Abandoning Metadata Standards

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IUScholarWorks