Not as easy as it sounds! - American Library Association
advertisement
Taming Metadata in the Wild West Liz Bishoff, Colorado Digitization Program Cheryl Walters, Utah State University Chuck Thomas, Florida State University Elizabeth S. Meagher, University of Denver ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org ©2002 Colorado Digitization Program Who what when where—Western Trails Digital Standards • Western Trails 2001 IMLS funded grant – Multi-state initiative to create a collection of digital objects on topic of Western Trails – 23 participating institutions, creating 20,000 digital objects – Each institution would host their own digital object/each would create their own metadata/each would use their own metadata standards and their own database or local system – Each state would create a statewide http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project database http://www.cdpheritage.org ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program Who, what, when, where (con’t) • Interoperability of the 4 state databases was through Z39.50, with a SiteSearch Web-Z interface • Based on the CDP experience – Crosswalks from various databases – Reviewed the CDP Best Practices – Agreed to utilize Dublin Core as the common format • Involved more than just the 4 states – Utah Academic Library Consortia, New Mexico, Arizona, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming – 18 representatives from archives, museums, historical societies in these states met over a 9 month period to develop the document ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Why Western States Best Practices? • Improve user results/satisfaction • Improve consistency across different cultural heritage institutions • Enhance potential for creating union catalogs from multiple databases/ILS • Provide guidance for cultural heritage institutions on use of Dublin Core for digital resources • Support interoperability • Support emerging standards--OAI ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Taming Metadata in the Wild West Part 2: Writing the metadata guidelines ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org ©2002 Colorado Digitization Program Western Trail Metadata Task Forces - Descriptive Elements - Title Creator Subject Description Date.Original Relation - Contributor Publisher Language Source Coverage - Technical Elements - Date.Digital Type Format.Use Holding.Institution ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program Format.Creation Identifier Rights Management http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Getting It Done • Set up two electronic discussion lists • Used Colorado Digital Project’s metadata guidelines as a base document • Created initial working draft – base document – decisions made during WSDSG’s first meeting – input from task force members • Distributed draft to task force for revision (additions, deletions, rewrites, etc.) • Changes discussed via email & incorporated • Result taken back to entire Western States Digital Standards Group for review ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Some concepts • Define all terms used • Avoid being library-centric • Do not assume cataloging or metadata experience • Provide lots of examples • Provide links to related thesauri, standards, etc. ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Problems, points of contention • Figuring out exactly what data each Dublin Core element should contain Not as easy as it sounds! - Figuring out how to make guidelines flexible & comprehensive enough to fit a variety of situations, collaborative ventures & partners, for now and in the future. ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org The Coverage element • Official DC definition: “The extent or scope of the content of the resource” • • • • What does that mean exactly? How does it differ from the Subject Does not mean date/place of publication Our description of this element: “Describes the spatial or temporal characteristics of the intellectual content of the resource” – For art objects and artifacts, this could be the place where the object originated and the date or time period during which it was made. – Currently recommended only for maps, etc. or when place or time period cannot be adequately described by Subject element. ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Source versus Relation element • Looking at California State Library’s Metadata Standards helped – Source maps to MARC 534 • Note about original version – Relation maps to MARC 787 • Note about a related title • The lights came on for catalogers who wanted to provide similar MARC tag equivalents; voted down as too library-centric. There are other standards beside MARC! ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Relation refinements explained • Relation element has 12 possible refinements • Meaning of each not always obvious • Some of the differences not clear – Relation.IsFormatOf versus Relation.HasFormatOf. - We provided DC’s explanation of the relationship between the resource and the object described in relation field. - Also gave concrete example of each ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Publisher element • Not straightforward when object is digitized version of previously published item – Is it the digitizing institution? – Is it the publisher of the original version? • Our guideline explains – “The Publisher element contains information about the digital publisher. Publisher information from earlier stages in an object’s publishing history may be listed in ... Source and Contributor.” ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Date element • What could possibly be confusing about “Date”? - Date originally issued, published, made, or created? - Date digitized? - Date of an associated event? - We created two new refinements to distinguish most important dates: - Date.Original “Creation or modification dates for the original resource from which the digital object was derived or created.” - Date.Digital “Date of creation or availability of the digital resource.” ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Enter initial articles in titles? • Sounds innocuous but ... Affects sorting for display or reports Do you want the title “The toupee worn by....” to sort by “Toupee” or “The”? - MARC controls via indicators; other formats don’t have - If leave out, creates possible problem if migrating data into or out of a MARC format databases. - One person dryly commented: “there will probably be some sort of trouble no matter what we decide.” - Our guidelines recommend omitting initial articles. ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Making guidelines“one size fits all” • Tried to encourage users to think about ramifications of their metadata decisions • Reminded them to think about how data may be migrated and shared in future • Listed lots of different thesauri & schemes to give users some choices • Listed important info that metadata creators should include in record. – Example: the Format.Creation field ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Improving quality & detail of data • Format.Creation field guidelines describe important technical data that users might want to include: – File size, quality (bit depth, resolution), extent (playtime, etc.), compression, checksum value, operating system, creation hardware & software, etc. • Format.Creation also gives links to resources with more info about terms and standards. ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org A rose by any other name... • One user community’s “autograph album” might be another’s “libri amicorum” • How can we accommodate many potential controlled vocabularies • Does the public need or want to know what vocabularies are used? ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Flexible subject guidelines – Allow and provide links to many different thesauri – Separate out different subject/genre schemes • Example: Put all the Lib of Congress subject headings in one field; put all the genre terms from Thesaurus for Graphic Materials in another. – Identify thesauri used via scheme qualifier in field label, not mixed in with data in field itself which is searchable. • Example: Label is Subject.MeSH so that “mesh” does not become a searchable term. ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Taming Metadata in the Wild West Part 3: Applications ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org ©2002 Colorado Digitization Program Metadata Application Depends On: • • • • • Information available about the artifact Expertise of the researcher Complexity of records Expertise of the cataloger Data entry system and display ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org MARC to Dublin Core – DCBuilder ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Original Museum Record ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Museum Record after CDP Title Acer florissanti Creator Contributor Link http://planning.nps.gov/flfo/tax3_Detail.cfm?ID=13484004 [Access] [URI] Publisher 1. Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument 2. National Park Service Description Plant (Angiosperm, Dicotyledon) Family: Aceraceae Date Digital 2000 Subject(s) Aceraceae -- Colorado Angiosperms, Fossil -- Colorado Dicotyledons, Fossil – Colorado Florissant (Colo.) Type 1. image [DCMI Type Vocabulary] 2. text [DCMI Type Vocabulary] Source National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution USNM-333761 Languages eng [ISO 639-2] Relation MacGinitie, D.D., Fossil Plants of the Florissant Beds, Colorado, Carnegie Format Use 1. image/jpeg [IMT] [medium] 2.text/html [IMT] [medium] Rights National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution Project Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Metadata Record in ContentDM ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Metadata Record in ContentDM Continued ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Metadata Elements - Public Display ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Historical Society Metadata Record ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Direct Input Title Annual report of the Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society at Denver, Colo. Creator Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society (U.S.) Contributor Link http://library.du.edu/About/collections/SpecialCollections/jcrs/annualreports.cfm Publisher University of Denver. Penrose Library Description The <3rd- > reports published <1907- > as regular numbered issues of: The Sanatorium, v. <1- > The 11th and 12th reports (covering 1914-15) issued in combined form as: The Sanatorium ; v. 10, nos. 3/4 (July-Sept./Oct.-Dec. 1916) Reports cover the year ending Dec. 31. Chiefly in English, with some Hebrew. Date Original 1905-1906. [Issued] [W3C-DTF] Date Digital 2002-01-04 [Created] Subject(s) Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society (U.S.) -- Periodicals. Tuberculosis -- Patients -- Colorado. Sanatoriums -- Colorado -- Denver. Type image [DCMI Type vocabulary] Source 23-26 cm. Languages eng [ISO 639-2]; heb [ISO 639-2] Relation Beck Archives/Rocky Mountain Jewish History Society. Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society Collection. Special Collections Dept., Penrose Library, University of Denver, Denver, Colo. Format Create jpg; 300 dpi; 145 files; Epson Expression 836 XL Scanner; Adobe Photoshop version 5.5. Format Use image/jpg [Medium] [IMT] Rights http://www.penlib.du.edu/specoll/copyri.html ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Metadata Record in ContentDM ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Taming Metadata in the Wild West Part 4: Accommodation of levels of expertise ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org ©2002 Colorado Digitization Program Local Metadata Routes mappings & migrations LEGACY METADATA Local MetaBase Services NEW latest metadata standard CONTENT constituents ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Z39.50 Access content w/out local database Z39.50 Connections Conversion Scripts Local MetaBase ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program Heritage Colorado Metadata Colorado Western Trails Metadata http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org OAI Access CONTENT PROVIDER FSU DIGITAL OAI-WT OAI-DC CONTENT PROVIDER OAI-METS CONTENT PROVIDER COLORADO HERITAGE MOUNTAIN WEST DL OAI-WT OAI-DC WESTERN TRAILS SERVICES PROVIDER OAI-WT ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Content Provider Challenges Implementing OAI - Intermediate Brokers May Be Necessary Choosing Brokers & Harvesters Maintaining Current OAI Provider Support Awareness of Current Metadata Standards Mapping Local Metadata to Supported Schema Maintaining Current Transformation Procedure - Examples Knowing Who Has Your Metadata ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Service Provider Challenges Maintaining Current OAI Harvester Support - Continuing support for older versions Awareness of Communities & Metadata Schema - What to collect? - Multiple views / repurposing - Added value of relationships between objects/collections - Link in a greater series of brokers? Maintaining Multiple Data About Same Objects? - Examples Active Role as Harvester/Service Provider - Contrast with more passive current OAI role ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org Thank You! Liz Bishoff Colorado Digitization Program liz@bishoff.com Cheryl Walters Utah State University Cheryl.Walters@usu.edu Chuck Thomas Florida State University Libraries cthomas@fsu.edu Elizabeth “Betty” Meagher University of Denver emeagher@du.edu ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project ©2003 Colorado Digitization Program http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org http://www.cdpheritage.org
