Metadata Blog

Maureen P. Walsh, Metadata Librarian, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University Libraries
Topic: Institutional Repository Metadata
(Presentation slides and handouts are available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/1811/31699 )

The Ohio State University’s Institutional Repository is also called “the Knowledge Bank” (https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/index.jsp). As a Metadata Librarian at OSU, Walsh addressed some of the important issues on institutional repository metadata, such as metadata schemes, crosswalking, data normalization, harvesting from the viewpoint of shareable metadata and customization of metadata display and user interfaces.

Currently, the Knowledge Bank has 40 communities and about 29, 573 records. The types of materials they deposit include journals, monographs, undergraduate thesis, conference materials, technical reports, images and oral histories. Based on the statistics from ROAR (Registry of Open Access Repositories), deposits in Knowledge Bank increased steadily from 2004 to 2007. In 2007, 5 days of the daily deposits were over 100 items, and 47 days of the daily deposits were between 10 and 99. The Knowledge Bank has been harvested by Google, Google Scholar, OpenDOAR, CIC Metadata Portal and OAIster. Walsh discussed the KB metadata application profile, Metadata Registry and preservation metadata. She explained the effort they took to make better metadata and better display interfaces, including to make metadata more shareable, perform authority control of author names and subjects, create community metadata application profile, customize input forms to allow users to choose from predefined field value (such as department, award statement, interviewee, interviewer and subject), to customize item metadata display, and to repurpose MARC records. As Walsh explains, it is to “add a measure of data control in [their] institutional repository in the interests of both quality metadata and shareable metadata.” Walsh’s valuable and comprehensive experience as well as presentation will be a good reference for other librarians who also work with institutional repositories.

Amy Jackson & Myung-Ja Han, Project Coordinator, IMLS Digital Collections and Content, Metadata Librarian, University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign
Topic: Changes in Interoperability of Dublin Core Metadata Records Over Time
(Presentation slides available at: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/about.asp#Presentations )

The IMLS Digital Collections and Content project (http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/), a collection registry and item-level metadata repository, is an IMLS (the Institute of Museum and Library Services) National Leadership Grant Program (NLG). It began in December 2002, and recently extended to 2010. Currently the collection registry has 180 NLG projects and 15 LSTA (the Library Services and Technology Act) projects, and overall harvested about 310,448 records.

To study sharable metadata quality change over time, the researchers at UIUC did qualitative and quantitative analysis of records harvested from Jan. 1, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2006. Quantitative analysis looked at the use of core fields and the length and repetition of the fields. Qualitative analysis examined the misuse of Dublin Core (DC) fields and the mapping errors. The results of the former analysis shows a decline in the use of all eight core DC fields, in more detail, the most often missing elements are creator and rights, and format and description fields have shown the most significant decline in use since 2003… It is not surprising to find out that “users can only search across all records by searching on the title field”, and in fact, “metadata creators are becoming more discriminating in their use of DC fields in the local context”. The results of the latter analysis displays that the misuse of DC elements is not uncommon (such as the misuse of Date and Coverage fields, Source and Relation fields, Format and Description fields, and Type and Format fields), confusion in descriptive metadata and administrative metadata, and information lost in mapping from local scheme such as MARC to DC.

Based on the analysis, it is concluded that positive changes in metadata practices have not been observed. The researchers recommend that the data providers publicly document crosswalking practices and communities publish local metadata practices. It is also suggested to expose native metadata in addition to DC for the mapping process and to ensure that creators receive appropriate training in creating sharable quality metadata.

Kristin Martin, Electronic Resources Cataloger, Catalog Department, UNC Chapel Hill
Topic: Building a Collection of Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Metadata Issues and Lessons Learned
(Presentation slides are available at: http://library.wichita.edu/techserv/NRMIG/NRMIGpresentation2008-Martin.ppt )

The UNC (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) Libraries provide access to the electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) through both the traditional catalog and CONTENTdm. Starting from May 2008, electronic submission becomes mandatory for the UNC graduate students. The ETD website is at http://dc.lib.unc.edu/etd/index.php?CISOROOT=/etd

Martin gave us an overview of the ETD (Electronic Theses and Dissertations) project at UNC. She discussed metadata used for ETDs, which tried to follow the standards of NDLTD (Networkded Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations), UNC’s local ContentDM data dictionarly and AACR2 and LCRI. As these standards will not always agree, their two major cataloging agencies also showed inconsistency in terms of metadata creation practices. Despite these reality dilemmas, additional challenges exist in the ContentDM software, the workflow, PDF format and the DC-MARC crosswalk implementation. Martin described the transformation process of their expanded version of Dublin Core (in ContentDM) to MARC (for OCLC and local catalog). The main reason they start from ContentDM is that “selected fields can be prepopulated from information provided by the Graduate School,” and “difficulty maintaining consistent URL without beginning in ContentDM”. It is a very sincere sharing of a reality show.

Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Update Forum
January 14, 2008
1:30-3:30 pm

Yee Cataloging Rules, or, Alternative RDA: an experiment in designing a different approach to FRBR-izing the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules with a focus on the rules for continuing resources by Martha Yee, UCLA Film & Television Archive and Ed Jones, National University

(MY=Martha Yee)

Personal experiment (not an institutional experiment)

http://myee.bol.ucla.edu

Quick summary – experiment in designing rules to guide catalogers in mapping data elements to FRBR group 1 entities, so that the resulting records can be used to build FRBR-ized displays.

One of the questions to answer — RDA maps to manifestation, can we map to expression?

Perhaps our entity definitions can be brought more in line with what MY thinks is the users’ entity definitions. The Yee rules discard the change-of-name-is-change-of-identity principal.

Experiment in data modeling. Working on an RDF model of the resultant rules to try to find weak spots in RDF where it cannot accommodate our data. MY is trying to learn about data modeling, so we don’t recreate our mistakes with the designs of OPACs where catalogers were not involved and/or didn’t understand the system design.

Continuing resources – identify work by latest title in conjunction with principal creator, if applicable. Let catalogers determine when principal cataloger is useful.

Serials – new work created only by splits and mergers, not by title change, not by restarting the numbering

Change in identity might be new work, but not knee-jerk reaction to change of title.

Expressions for simultaneously released editions, such as different languages or newspaper editions for different markets.

MY introduced a new entity to the FRBR set called “title-manifestation”, sitting between expression and manifestation.

Minor title changes would be summarized in the title-manifestation description

For monographs, a title-manifestation might be an expression of a work that is simultaneously published in the United States and Great Britain under two different titles with identical content. Cutter called this a “title edition”. MY thinks this concept was always missing in FRBR.

The problem with expression is that it is tied to changes in content. But with serials, every single issue changes content. Big culture clash between monographs & serials.

A serial is a hollow shell containing other works that constantly change content.

In serials, a manifestation is used for a different physical format or for copies distributed differently (print, electronic, different URLs, etc.)

MY then presented degression, which is different from RDA/AACR2. Degression:

• work level: all data elements that apply to every expression/title-manifestation/manifestation of the work.
• Everything at work level applies to every expression
• Everything at expression level applies to every title-manifestation
• Everything at title-manifestation level applies to every manifestation

Continue reading →

The RDA Update Forum was organized by the Cataloging and Classification Section (CSS) of the Associations for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS). It was held on Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 at 10:30am in the Lecture Hall of the Pennsylvania Convention Center. It featured 3 speakers: Beecher Wiggins (from The Library of Congress), Marjorie Bloss (the RDA Project Manager) and John Attig (the ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee).

Wiggins presented the response of The Committee of Principals for the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules and Resource Description and Access to the Library of Congress’ Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. CoP disagrees very strongly with the Working Group’s recommendation to suspend work on RDA pending further testing of the FRBR conceptual model. CoP recommended that LoC continue offering input on the development of RDA, as starting a new FRBR study group from scratch would be both more expensive & less efficient than continuing work with RDA. CoP also noted that LoC’s potential withdrawal from the project could push back RDA’s release date even further.

Continue reading →

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)
Liaison Report
Submitted by Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

CC:DA discussions and actions at ALA Midwinter 2008 in Philadelphia.
RDA
Work on RDA is proceeding on schedule with a targeted release date of early 2009. In a press release after the JSC meeting in October, the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Library and Archives Canada, and the National Library of Australia stated their support for RDA and agreed on a coordinated implementation in late 2009 and would work together on such matters as training, documentation, and any national application decisions. Though the final report of the LC Working Group on Bibliographic Control recommended suspension of work on RDA until FRBR is more fully tested, LC staff (as of ALA anyway) have not been informed of any change in LC’s participation in the RDA process, are operating with the assumption that the process is going forward as planned. Some Big Heads attendees were told that LC administration was going to discuss this after ALA. Given the mixed messages from LC, it is difficult as of this writing to know exactly how active their participation will be in future.
The JSC reorganized the contents of RDA again to relate data elements more closely to FRBR entities and user tasks. It will have 10 sections (37 chapters) that focus first on recording attributes for FRBR and FRAD entities and then on recording relationships between entities. As has been noted by many reviewers, much of the text of RDA is identical to AACR2. However, the context has been greatly changed, and understanding a rule in AACR2 does not necessarily mean that one will understand the RDA version of the rule. As Barbara Tillett noted at CC:DA, it is very difficult to simplify wording without introducing ambiguity. For the current RDA prospectus and draft outline of chapters, see
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdaprospectus.html
and for the RDA scope and structure document, see
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-scoperev2.pdf
RDA is not tied to any specific record structure. The JSC has provided three implementation scenarios that RDA must support: a scenario for flat records, a scenario for combination of current (i.e. Marc21 compliant) bibliographic, authority, and holdings records, and a scenario for a relational/object oriented database structure which includes records for work, expression, manifestation, item, and a type of record for persons/places/concepts, etc. Though MARBI is discussing implementation issues, there is now an admission that a new, post-MARC data format is necessary to implement the optimal (relational/object oriented) scenario. Due to time constraints, however, initial implementation will surely be Marc21 with as many modifications as can be made by the implementation rollout. For the RDA implementation scenarios, see
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5editor2.pdf
and
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5editor4.pdf

CC:DA discussions January 2008

CC:DA met three times at ALA Midwinter, with most business concerning the RDA draft and the report of the JSC representative. This latest draft concerns identifying and recording attributes of works, persons, families, corporate bodies. There are more attributes than are recorded in current MARC21 authority records. This is the last new material to be issued before July, when the final draft including all previously issued material will be released. There will be placeholders for future material that will not be released until 2009 or later. That draft may be in a hyperlinked form, which we are assured will be much easier to navigate than the paper/PDF drafts. It was reiterated at the meeting that a print product is also needed. An RDA implementation task force has been created and a program is planned for Annual.
Other CC:DA activities included reports on:
Recent Library of Congress activities by Barbara Tillett
NISO, by Cindy Hepfer, ALA’s new representative
Task Force on Specialist Cataloging Manuals, Mark Scharff – this generated a question as to whether it is appropriate to include manuals based on AACR2 since AACR2 will be obsolete on the publication of RDA, thus rendering the specialist manuals also obsolete.
ALA publishing, by Donald Chatham
MARBI, by Everett Allgood
PCC guidelines on Multiple Character Sets, by Peter Fletcher
CC:DA internal and external communication, by Laura Smart – note that there will soon be a public CC:DA listserv
CCS Executive Committee, by Cheri Folkner

Cataloging Norms Discussion Group
2008-01-12 ; 1:30 PM – 3:30 PM ; Pennsylvania Convention Center in 109 B ; ALCTS – CCS

Rebecca L. Lubas, Head of Cataloging & Metadata Services, MIT Libraries
Speaking on: “Creating a Metadata Services Unit at MIT Libraries”
• MIT libraries partnered with MIT’s Open Course Ware (OCW) in 20002
• tested and designed the metadata module in OCW’s content management system
• created a metadata production assistant position and metadata specialist position in 2003 for a four year agreement. still going!
• interacting with mainstream lib work more and more
• metadata module: not creating in XML; input interface GUI-based; use Learning Object Metadata; haven’t incorporated creator authority work in module, but do keep authorities in FMP database, hope to integrate in system down the road
• new challenges: demanding deadlines — cost recovery model, promise-by date, takes getting used to as a cataloger

Continue reading →