The Future of Technical Services:
Metadata: Standards and New
Developments
NLA Annual Conference, October, 2005
Reno, Nevada
Vicki Toy Smith
University of Nevada, Reno
Machine Readable Cataloging
(MARC)



Standard in the 1960s
Revolutionary advancement at the
time
Development of MARC set the stage
for creation of centralized library
databases
40 Years Later (2005)


Now is the time for recreation of
bibliographic standards
Need for new infrastructure =
Existing (MARC) + new standards
Need for a new set of
standards to be developed

Some Issues:



Versatility
Extensibility
Cooperative management
What is Metadata?


“Data about data”
5 types of metadata:
 Descriptive – Title, author, topic, etc.
 Administrative – Record number, record date,
etc.
 Technical – File size, software needed, etc.
 Rights – Copyright ownership, etc.
 Management – typically by/for owning agency
(Price paid, circulation restrictions, etc.)
Examples of metadata
schemas












Dublin Core (Cross disciplinary)
DDI (Social sciences)
EAD (Archives)
FGDC (Geographic)
IMS (Education)
LOM (Learning Object Metadata)
MARC (Libraries)
METS (Structural metadata)
ONIX (Publishers & booksellers)
TEI (Text encoding-Humanities)
VRA (Visual resources)
Etc. …
Why is Metadata Important?






Increased accessibility
Ability for different systems to talk to one
another
Expanding use
Multi-versioning
Preservation
Cost considerations
Examples of Metadata
Standards Web Sites:


LC standards include:
MARC: Machine-Encoded Cataloging:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/
 MARCXML
http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/
 MODS: Metadata Object Description Schema:
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/
 EAD: Encoded Archival Description (LC & SAA):
http://www.loc.gov/ead/

Another standard—Developed by Dublin Core Metadata
Initiative:
 Dublin Core:
http://dublincore.org
Library related standards:
Considerations


MARC21 Formats--Representation and communication of
descriptive metadata about information items
 International standard (maintained by LC)
 Field/record size limitations
 No ability to embed related objects (e.g. book cover GIF)
 Limited ability to convey hierarchical/complex
relationships
 Narrow focus on cataloging
 Cannot be directly processed by widely-used web
applications
MARCXML – MARC21 data in an XML structure
 Especially useful for description of complex digital
library objects
 Allows libraries to use common computer language
 Ignores/simplifies some MARC21 data
 Not an international standard yet (maintained by LC)
Library related standards:
Considerations (cont’d.)

MODS (Metadata Object Description Standard)—XML
markup language for selected data from MARC21 records as
well as original resource description
 Richer than Dublin Core; library-oriented XML metadata
schema
 Can accommodate AACR2 standards
 Maintained by same agency (LC) that maintains MARC21
 Well-suited as a metadata format for OAI harvesting
 Used by some publishers now (e.g. UC Press (California
Digital Library) & University of Chicago Press)
 MARC21 readily converts to MODS; however, cannot
readily do a reverse conversion of MODS to MARC21
 Community best practice guidelines would enhance
usefulness
Archival related standard:
Considerations

EAD (Encoded Archival Description)—XML markup
design for encoded finding aids using Standard
Generalized Markup Language
 EAD header carries metadata for finding aid
 Standard maintained by LC along with SAA
 Best suited for archival description
 Provides simple or complex mark-up design to
support varying levels of indexing
 Needs help at the item level
Dublin Core standard:
Considerations

Dublin Core – Metadata element set (for description of
digital objects)
 Maintenance agency: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
(DCMI) hosted by OCLC Research
 Intended for use by both non-catalogers and specialists
 No MARC tags used with Dublin Core metadata
 No consistency across different projects using Dublin
Core
 Documentation for Dublin Core not well-defined
 Western States Best Practices (version 2.0) useful
http://www.cdpheritage.org/resource/metadata/wsdc
mbp/
 UALC Cataloging/Metadata Committee working on
handbook
Some other types of Digital
Library Standards

Library of Congress also working on:
 METS (Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard)—
Structure for encoding descriptive, administrative & structural
metadata (www.loc.gov/mets)
 OCLC DPR, RLG, Harvard, National Library of Wales
exploring or using for various projects


MIX (NISO Metadata for Images in XML)—XML schema for
encoding technical data elements required to manage digital
image collections
 MIX still in developmental stages
PREMIS (Preservation Metadata)—Data dictionary and
supporting XML schemas for core preservation metadata
needed to support the long-term preservation of digital
materials
Standards necessary when
planning metadata projects





Attention to rules/guidelines when implementing
a specific type of metadata
Community best practice guidelines need to be
developed for each schema
When standards are revised or extended, it will
be difficult to transform the metadata from one
set to another
When metadata standards are extended to
represent local information, librarian needs to
work with the vendor to accommodate the
change
Examine use of crosswalks
Why use Crosswalks?







Allow for different systems to talk to one another
Break down data transfer barriers (different
systems can share)
Combine metadata catalogs (e.g. Union catalogs)
Provide cross search between unlike databases
(e.g. Federated search tools)
Make data/metadata maintenance more efficient
Enable conversion between record types
(MARCXML, MODS, DC)
Reduce cost in technical services processing
Crosswalking challenges






Schema granularity: One to many matches; many
to one matches
Crosswalking schemas need different granularity
levels
Specificity lacking to describe library resources
Handling object relationships or hierarchies
(e.g. EAD=>MARC, etc.)
Crosswalking is rarely a one to one mapping
Process results in some “un-mappable” data
Crosswalking model: MarcEdit allows catalogers to translate
data from one schema to another
(From Terry Reese’s metadata presentation at ALA Summer
Program 2005)
Future of technical services +
metadata?

Some issues to consider in planning new metadata projects


Choose a metadata schema that can make web searching more
meaningful
Choose a metadata schema that will help get your information
to the right audience

LC and others developing metadata tools

LC providing tools for translating MARC records into MODS


OCLC working on crosswalk (Metadata Switch Project)
http://www.oclc.org/research/mswitch/default.htm
OCLC working on FRBR algorithm
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/frbr/algorithm.htm
Future of technical services + metadata? (Cont’d.)
Individuals also creating metadata tools—
Terry Reese’s Marc Edit tool
Future of technical services +
metadata? (cont’d.)

Examination of standards and protocols being
developed for the harvesting of metadata
 e.g. Open Archives Initiative for Metadata
Harvesting
 http://www.openarchives.org/
New Developments


System migration considerations for all
parties concerned
More publishers starting to provide XML
records


e.g. UC Press records
Federated Search Tools being developed

e.g. Innovative Interfaces: Millennium Access
Plus (MAP)
New Developments (cont’d.)


Vendors now providing XML tools to manage
digital collections
Innovative Interfaces products:
 Millennium Media Management
 Creates/stores media objects (e.g. images,
sound files, audio files)
 Also includes a Copyright/Access component
to handle licensing/copyright issues of
digital collections
 XML Harvester
 Gathers XML records from any server
 Parses/creates record on Innovative system
 Metadata Builder—Supports EAD, DC & XML
 Stores XML in metadata schema of choice
What can libraries do today?




Libraries can provide metadata services (e.g. MIT):
 MIT’s Metadata services includes:
 Data & conceptual models
 XML binding
 Best practices
 Applications
 Training
http://libraries.mit.edu/metadata/services.html
Libraries can develop new pilot projects to investigate uses of
metadata
Libraries can request that vendors/publishers develop new
products to facilitate change
UNR has begun several pilot projects using:
 Dublin Core
 EAD
 Example of EAD Finding Aid (with style sheet)
http://www.library.unr.edu/specoll/9716.xml
 MARC Edit toolkit
Current Metadata projects at
UNR

Digital collections (using CONTENTdm) with metadata coded in
Dublin Core:
http://imageserver.library.unr.edu/

Metadata harvesting by:

UALC’s Mountain West Digital Library
http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/mwdl/

University of Michigan’s OAIster
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/
Useful Web Sites






Standards at the Library of Congress
 http://www.loc.gov/standards
XML Standards at the Library of Congress LC Network
Development and MARC Standards ( framework for
working with MARC data in a XML environment)
 http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/
Library of Congress Portals Applications Issues Group
 http://www.loc.gov/catdir/lcpaig/
NISO Web Site identifies, develops, maintains, publishes
technical standards to manage information in digital
environment
 http://www.niso.org/
NISO article on Understanding Metadata
 http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Understandi
ngMetadata.pdf
Terry Reese’s Marc Editing Utility
 http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset/marcedit/html/
Thank you!
Vicki Toy Smith, Principal Cataloger
University of Nevada, Reno
vicki@unr.edu