Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
1
Introduction
Group three consisted of Rachel Neithercut, Cameron Pierson, and Julia
Westblade. We each created our own schema and then met to come up with a
unified structure we named G3 Core. Our goals were to create a metadata schema
that applies to the current objects in the Bela Imregi collection that is simple, can be
applied to any future acquisitions, and does not contain superfluous information.
Cameron took the lead to create a timeline for when we should complete
each step and after our discussions, drafted and submitted the final G3 Core. For
our group presentation and this paper, Cameron was responsible for our final fields
and discussing the creation of G3 Core. Rachel compiled the slides that each
member made to create our unified PowerPoint and posted our Step 2 check
in. She wrote the section about and presented on group consensus. Because Julia
was the only one to use Library of Congress subject headings in her original
schema, she wrote about and presented on the vocabulary we chose for G3 Core
and then edited our group paper to make it a unified document. We each cataloged
five of the fifteen items in the Bela Imregi Collection.
2
Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
Consensus Fields Framework
G3 Core
Element
Description
Identifier
A unique number/identifier associated with the resource.
Title
Name given to the resource; formal or common
Subject
LCSH
Description (as brief as
possible)
· Attributes of resource; can be listed or text;
color/b&w, topic, facts, etc.
· Image, text, auditory resource, etc.
· Additional resource to access/play/hear, etc. the
resource.
Format
File Format, physical medium, or dimensions of the
resource.
Source
Where is the resource from/derived?
Contributor
Who created or is otherwise responsible for this
resource?
Publisher
Party responsible for publication.
Rights
Who holds the rights to this resource? Open Content or
Reserved?
Date
A point or period of time in the life-cycle of the resource
Language
What language is the resource in? (If applicable).
In total, G3 Core consists of eleven fields: Identifier, Title, Subject, Description,
Format, Source, Contributor, Publisher, Rights, Date, and Language. The schema itself is
based on three schemas, all of which were based on Dublin Core. After reviewing one
another’s individual product, the group discussed differences and mutually agreed on a
final product. Our shared goal was that the group product be something simple that only
Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
contains the necessary, essential fields and is flexible enough for modification as any
3
future process may need.
The assignment provided information for the Bela Imregi Collection and this
became the basis for all of our rationale. Given this information, we designed a schema
around what the collection could and could not offer in terms of catalogable information
but that could still be flexible where needed. Even beyond this point, however, group
three felt that the given fields should provide the most basic information any surrogate
could have without giving neither superfluous information nor too sparse of information.
After reviewing each individual schema, we formed a draft schema by splicing
together the best of each while editing out any redundant or useless fields. After this, we
applied the draft schema to the collection in equal parts by each member of the group; a
fifteen item collection cataloged equally by three members, yielding five records per
person. After input to a group discussion record on Blackboard, we met to discuss the
finer points of the schema to make final adjustments. These adjustments included the
subdivision of the Date field (for date of the item and accession date) as well as the
schema’s philosophical practices with the use of the Library of Congress Subject
Heading-based controlled vocabulary, i.e. avoid subdivision when unnecessary to open
accessibility. This meeting resulted in a uniformity of record entries and a more refined
final schema.
Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
4
Consensus Record Creation
Group three’s approach to creating the consensus record was broken down
into two phases. First, we assigned five records to each group member then once
we had used the eleven elements to catalog our five records, we met as a group to
discuss the rationale behind each interpretation. In this step, we went through each
set of records and discussed the difference in the application of each element. By
engaging in thoughtful discussion, and using well reasoned arguments, we were
able to come to a consensus about the manner in which the elements would be
applied.
The biggest boon that was offered by the collaborative nature of this project
was the differences in opinion and interpretation of each group member. These
differences forced each member to provide a rationale for his or her opinions. By
working through these differences, group members were able to understand where
unintentional ambiguities might present problems, and also where too much rigidity
might limit the utility of a certain element or statement.
Group 3 faced no real challenges in the consensus building process. Each
member of the team contributed meaningfully to each step of the process and each
member was willing to listen to the ideas of the others. The ease of consensus may
also be attributed to the group’s small size, since there were fewer personalities with
which to contend. One feature that aided in the creation of a consensus record was
the timeliness with which all tasks were completed. Having everyone make their
contribution in a timely fashion really enhanced the collaborative environment, and
allowed subsequent tasks to be completed more easily.
Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
5
Consensus Vocabularies and Tools
One of the decisions our group had to make was whether to apply our
schema to the photographs posted to the website or to the physical items
represented in those images. We decided that due to provided measurement
information, we had more information about the physical items and that the uploaded
images are a tool used to promote the collection and increase access. Researchers
who want to learn about Bela Imregi will care about the physical item more than a
scan or a snapshot of it. Because we applied our schema to the actual items rather
than the images, we had to apply the language field to items that had writing or
inscriptions.
The only controlled vocabulary we used were Library of Congress Subject
Headings. We liked that these terms are standardized and easy for researchers to
access for themselves. We applied the subject terms to the individual items rather
than to the collection a whole to increase access. It is possible that one of the items
could be helpful to a researcher who has no interest in the themes of the entire
collection. We limited the number of allowable subject heading to six per item to
keep with our goal of simplicity and necessity and to ensure that we only used
relevant tags. In the end, we never used more than three subject headings on a
given record.
Group 3 used many different tools to communicate and come up with our final
product. We exchanged email addresses and posted personal schemas to the file
Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
share on our Blackboard group page. After viewing each other’s first step, we
6
discussed goals for our final product and Julia opened a discussion of thoughts
about each field in the Blackboard group page. Based on this discussion board,
conversations in class, and emails, Cameron composed a first draft of G3 Core and
posted it to a shared file on Google Drive. We met as a group to finalize this draft,
divide the collection, and decide who would present which aspects. We each
created our own PowerPoint slides and emailed them to Rachel who compiled them
into a unified presentation. We continued to use our Google Drive folder to share
documents and create our final group report. Throughout this entire process, we
stayed in constant contact through group text messages.
Conclusion
Group 3 carried its theme of simplicity throughout this entire project. We
communicated well through multiple platforms and worked well together. If there
were any disagreements we discussed them calmly and provided rationale for every
decision. Our final schema is founded on the principles of ease of access, simplicity,
and the reduction of superfluity and redundancy. We designed a system that works
with the provided information and can easily be applied to any future additions to the
Bela Imregi Collection.
Bibliograpic References
Rachel Neithercut
Cameron Pierson
Julia Westblade
LIS 6210
Dr. Neavill
4/26/2015
Bela Imregi Collection. (2009-2010). In Flickr. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bejapa/sets/72157623436709816
7
Hillmann, D. (2005). Using Dublin Core - The elements. In Dublin Core Metadata
Initiative. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from
http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml
Library of Congress. (2015, February). In Library of Congress authorities. Retrieved
from http://authorities.loc.gov/
Library of Congress. (2011, April). In Library of Congress subject headings.
Retrieved from http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects.html
Neithercut, R., Pierson, C., & Westblade, J. (2015, April). 6210 group project. In
Google drive. Retrieved from
https://drive.google.com/drive/#folders/0B6YoHvrsrqAafmFrUkZWaTkyWFNteVc4V
GwtNVE0aEZuNk00WGstbHFjeTZndmk0N2xuYk0
Neithercut, R., Pierson, C., & Westblade, J. (2015, April). Group 3: File exchange. In
Wayne State University Blackboard. Retrieved from
https://blackboard.wayne.edu/webapps/blackboard/execute/modulepage/viewGroup
?course_id=_1103158_1&group_id=_90024_1
Neithercut, R., Pierson, C. & Westblade, J. (2015). Personal communication.