A recording is not available for this presentation

Riley, Jenn

English

IUScholarWorks

4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 1
Making Interoperability Easier: 
Creating Shareable Metadata
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
IU Digital Library Program
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 2
What does this record describe?
identifier: http://name.university.edu/IC-FISH3IC-
X0802]1004_112
publisher: Museum of Zoology, Fish Field Notes 
format: jpeg 
rights: These pages may be freely searched and 
displayed. Permission must be received for 
subsequent distribution in print or electronically. 
type: image 
subject: 1926-05-18; 1926; 0812; 18; Trib. to Sixteen Cr. 
Trib. Pine River, Manistee R.; JAM26-460; 05; 
1926/05/18; R10W; S26; S27; T21N 
language: UND 
source: Michigan 1926 Metzelaar, 1926--1926; 
description: Flora and Fauna of the Great Lakes Region
Dublin Core record retrieved 
via the OAI Protocol
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 3
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 4
Why share metadata?
 Benefits to users
 One-stop searching
 Aggregation of subject-specific resources
 Benefits to institutions
 Increased exposure for collections
 Broader user base
 Bringing together of distributed collections
Don’t expect users will know about your 
collection and remember to visit it.
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 5
Types of aggregations
 “Traditional” aggregations
 WorldCat
 RLG Cultural Materials
 CIC Metadata Portal
 Newly emerging aggregations
 A9
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 6
Finding the right balance
 Metadata providers know the materials
 Document encoding schemes and controlled 
vocabularies
 Document practices
 Ensure record validity
 Aggregators have the processing power
 Format conversion 
 Reconcile known vocabularies
 Normalize data
 Batch metadata enhancement
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 7
Shareable metadata defined
 Promotes search interoperability - “the ability to 
perform a search over diverse sets of metadata 
records and obtain meaningful results” (Priscilla 
Caplan)
 Is human understandable outside of its local 
context
 Is useful outside of its local context
 Preferably is machine processable
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 8
Sarah Shreeves’ 4 Cs and lots of Ss of 
shareable metadata
Consistency
Coherence
Context
Conformance
Metadata standards 
(and not just DC)
Vocabulary and encoding standards
Descriptive content standards 
(AACR2, CCO, DACS)
Technical standards
(XML, Character encoding, etc)
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 9
Appropriate representation of the resource 
through shareable metadata
 Metadata as a view of the resource
 Standards promote interoperability
 Appropriate formats
 Appropriate content
 Appropriate context
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 10
Metadata as a view of the resource
 There is no monolithic, one-size-fits-all 
metadata record
 Metadata for the same thing is different 
depending on use and audience
 Affected by format, content, and context
 Harry Potter as represented by…
 a public library
 an online bookstore
 a fan site
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 11
Choice of vocabularies as a view
 Names
 LCNAF: Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1475-1564
 ULAN: Buonarroti, Michelangelo
 Places
 LCSH: Jakarta (Indonesia) 
 TGN: Jakarta
 Subjects
 LCSH: Neo-impressionism (Art)
 AAT: Pointillism
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 12
Standards promote interoperability
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 13
Types of standards to consider
 Data structure standards
 “Buckets” of information (fields)
 Both label and scope important
 e.g., MARC, MODS, Dublin Core
 Data content standards
 Selection, structure and formatting of value within 
a field
 e.g., AACR2, DACS, CCO
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 14
Appropriate formats
 Depends upon:
 nature of materials and holding institution
 depth of description needed
 community practice
 relationships between multiple versions
 need for repeating elements
 technical environment
 MARC, MODS, Dublin Core, EAD, and TEI may 
all be appropriate for a single item
 High-quality metadata in a format not common in 
your community of practice is not shareable
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 15
Appropriate content
 Choose appropriate vocabularies
 Choose appropriate granularity
 Make it obvious what to display
 Make it obvious what to index
 Exclude unnecessary “filler”
 Make it clear what links point to
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 16
Common content mistakes
 No indication of vocabulary used
 Shared record for a single page in a book
 Link goes to search interface rather than item 
being described
 “Unknown” or “N/A” in metadata record
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 17
Appropriate context
 Thinking about shareability
 Explicitly include information assumed locally
 Exclude information only used locally
 Current safe assumptions
 Users discover material through shared record
 User then delivered to your environment for full 
context
 Context driven by intended use
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 18
Common context mistakes
 Leaving out information that applies to an 
entire collection (“On a horse”)
 Location information lacking parent institution
 Geographic information lacking higher-level 
jurisdiction
 Inclusion of administrative metadata
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 19
Communication
 Metadata providers can learn from 
aggregators
 Aggregators can learn from metadata 
providers
 Providing supplemental information to make 
records more intelligible
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 20
Metadata providers can learn from 
aggregators
 Crosswalking methods and rules
 Information to include and exclude
 Choice of standards
 metadata formats
 vocabularies
 Where to spend normalization effort
 Future priorities [example]
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 21
Aggregators can learn from metadata 
providers
 Where to spend normalization effort
 Context, importance, and primary uses of 
resources shared
 Variety of resource types and descriptive 
practices encountered
 Local, robust metadata formats
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 22
Providing supplemental information to 
make records more intelligible
 Method for creating shared records
 Vocabularies and content standards used in 
shared records
 Record updating practices and schedules
 Accrual practices and schedules
 Existence of analytical or supplementary 
materials
 Provenance of materials
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 23
Before you share…
 Check your metadata
 Appropriate view?
 Consistent?
 Context provided?
 Does the aggregator have what they need?
 Documented?
Can a stranger tell you what the record 
describes?
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 24
Final thoughts
 Creating shareable metadata requires 
thinking outside of your local box
 Creating shareable metadata will require 
more work on your part
 Creating shareable metadata is no longer an 
option, it’s a requirement
4/19/2006 DLP Brown Bag Series Spring 2006 25
For more information
 Stay tuned for a potential IMLS-funded 
shareable metadata training program
 jenlrile@indiana.edu
 These presentation slides: 
<http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/bbspr06/shareableMetadata/>
Thanks to Sarah Shreeves of UIUC for 
collaboration on this research.


Making Interoperability Easier: Creating Shareable Metadata

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/2022/16495/2/shareMD.pdf

Making Interoperability Easier: Creating Shareable Metadata

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IUScholarWorks