Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015
61
Collection Development & Metadata Quality TF The Hague 18/05/2015 @jpekel What have we achieved and where are we going? Joris Pekel and Marie-Claire Dangerfield
Transcript of Collection development and metadata quality. Presentation at the Europeana Aggregator Forum 2015
Collection Development & Metadata Quality TF
The Hague 18/05/2015@jpekel
What have we achieved and where are we going?
Joris Pekel and Marie-Claire Dangerfield
Welcome Aggregators!
@jpekel
Looking back… 2011-2015
@jpekel
Lots of records!
@jpekel
From a lot of countries
@jpekel
6
We also worked on the quality of the database
Previews
à Old and new version with preview
@jpekel
@jpekel
Europeana Data Model
@jpekel
Rights Labelling
à G
Direct links
à Portal image with light box
@jpekel
Focus 2015-2020
à Screenshot strategy website
@jpekel
Quantity done well, but what about the quality?
à Poor record
@jpekel
How to find your beautiful material in a bin of 42 million records?
@jpekelMeisje is verdwaald op het strand. Nationaal Archief
@jpekel
@jpekel
Metadata Quality Task Force
@jpekel
Task Force on Metadata Quality
à How does Europeana define high quality metadata? à What is preventing the submission of good quality metadata? à How should data providers add information that is not in the
original metadata but is required by Europeana? à What is the difference between domain-specific metadata
and what is required for Europeana Data Model metadata? à What can be done to help the Europeana Network to
increase the submission of high quality metadata? à Who is responsible for checking data quality - data providers,
aggregators or Europeana?
@jpekel
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
@jpekel
Task Force on Metadata Quality
TF results Defined Metadata quality as:
à Resulting from a series of trusted processes à Findable à Readable à Standardised à Meaningful to audiences à Clear on re-use à Visible
@jpekel
TF results Blockers to Metadata Quality
à A lack of digital appraisal à Context of Metadata Creation à Metadata as a by-product of the preservation
process à Limited Resources à Type of Material Digitised à Lack of Understanding of Technical
documentation
TF results Some of the Recommendations:
à Metadata crosswalks need to be documented à The metadata processes need to be more
transparent à Minimum quality standard be raised à Greater use of the Europeana Publication Policy à Aggregators to conduct more checks before
submission à Europeana Aggregation Team to be more
available to Partners
Document published today
@jpekel
Collection Profile
à Creating collections becomes vital à Gives greater context to metadata à Constructed from existing EDM elements
à dcterms:isPartOf à edm:isRelatedTo, à dc:relation, à edm:isNextInSequence à edm:isReferencedBY
à Proposes to impliementation new EDM elements à edm:highlight à dcterms:description à edm:itemGenre
à Available in full http://bit.ly/1IGBdsS
Collection Profile
@jpekel
Thematic Focus
à Thematic Channels
à Art
à Music
à Better Selected Collections
à Designed for showcase andexploration
@jpekel
Europeana 280
à Campaign to showcase Europe's national art pieces in co-operation with Ministries of Culture
à Runs from now till October
à 28 countries 10 art works
à Rich metadata, high quality image
à Higher demands for a different product
@jpekel
Europeana 280
@jpekel
Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following
elements:
à Title of Work à The title should be the title as given by the creator. à Please submit a language tag for the title as this will
allow multilingual search. à For the purposes of this project, works cannot be titled
‘untitled’ à Description of Item
à This should be a short description of the work that helps the user find and understand the art piece.
à Name of Creator à This should be the common name of the creator.
à Date of Creation à Approximate dates if possible
Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following
elements:
à Type of work à Adding the type of artwork makes it easier to locate in a
search à Medium of work
à The type of materials used in the making of the object e.g. Oil on canvas, watercolour etc.
à Dimensions à We require the height, width, length of the object in its
physical form à Subject
Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following
elements:Location à This is the general location of the object à The more specific the better e.g. Mauritshaus, Den Haag
à A high-resolution digital version of the object à We recommend 4 megapixels à The image should not be embedded in a webpage as we
cannot then extract it. à Rights statements
à The rights statement should reflect the current copyright status of the artwork.
à Your works will gain greater exposure if you are able to provide them under an Open Licence.
What does this mean?
à Focus on Quality over Quantity
à Exists alongside the Europeana Portal
à Priority processing
à Improved representation for thematic material
How does this benefit you?
à We want you involved in this
à Dedicated channel for thematic works
à Chance to curate and showcase collections
à Collections more findable on the portal
à Institutions can promote their preferred artworks
à Resources set aside for the development of platform
Thank youJoris Pekel
@jpekel
Marie-Claire Dangerfield
Task Force on Metadata Quality
à How does Europeana define high quality metadata? à What is preventing the submission of good quality metadata? à How should data providers add information that is not in the
original metadata but is required by Europeana? à What is the difference between domain-specific metadata
and what is required for Europeana Data Model metadata? à What can be done to help the Europeana Network to
increase the submission of high quality metadata? à Who is responsible for checking data quality - data providers,
aggregators or Europeana?
@jpekel
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
Task Force on Metadata Quality
@jpekel
Task Force on Metadata Quality
TF results Defined Metadata quality as:
à Resulting from a series of trusted processes à Findable à Readable à Standardised à Meaningful to audiences à Clear on re-use à Visible
@jpekel
TF results Blockers to Metadata Quality
à A lack of digital appraisal à Context of Metadata Creation à Metadata as a by-product of the preservation
process à Limited Resources à Type of Material Digitised à Lack of Understanding of Technical
documentation
TF results Some of the Recommendations:
à Metadata crosswalks need to be documented à The metadata processes need to be more
transparent à Minimum quality standard be raised à Greater use of the Europeana Publication Policy à Aggregators to conduct more checks before
submission à Europeana Aggregation Team to be more
available to Partners
Collection Profile
à Creating collections becomes vital à Gives greater context to metadata à Constructed from existing EDM elements
à dcterms:isPartOf à edm:isRelatedTo, à dc:relation, à edm:isNextInSequence à edm:isReferencedBY
à Proposes to impliementation new EDM elements à edm:highlight à dcterms:description à edm:itemGenre
à Available in full http://bit.ly/1IGBdsS
Collection Profile
@jpekel
Thematic Focus
à Thematic Channels
à Art
à Music
à Better Selected Collections
à Designed for showcase andexploration
@jpekel
Europeana 280
à Campaign to showcase Europe's national art pieces in co-operation with Ministries of Culture
à Runs from now till October
à 28 countries 10 art works
à Rich metadata, high quality image
à Higher demands for a different product
@jpekel
Europeana 280
@jpekel
Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following
elements:
à Title of Work à The title should be the title as given by the creator. à Please submit a language tag for the title as this will
allow multilingual search. à For the purposes of this project, works cannot be titled
‘untitled’ à Description of Item
à This should be a short description of the work that helps the user find and understand the art piece.
à Name of Creator à This should be the common name of the creator.
à Date of Creation à Approximate dates if possible
Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following
elements:
à Type of work à Adding the type of artwork makes it easier to locate in a
search à Medium of work
à The type of materials used in the making of the object e.g. Oil on canvas, watercolour etc.
à Dimensions à We require the height, width, length of the object in its
physical form à Subject
Metadata and content brief à To achieve a record like this we require the following
elements:Location à This is the general location of the object à The more specific the better e.g. Mauritshaus, Den Haag
à A high-resolution digital version of the object à We recommend 4 megapixels à The image should not be embedded in a webpage as we
cannot then extract it. à Rights statements
à The rights statement should reflect the current copyright status of the artwork.
à Your works will gain greater exposure if you are able to provide them under an Open Licence.
What does this mean?
à Focus on Quality over Quantity
à Exists alongside the Europeana Portal
à Priority processing
à Improved representation for thematic material
How does this benefit you?
à We want you involved in this
à Dedicated channel for thematic works
à Chance to curate and showcase collections
à Collections more findable on the portal
à Institutions can promote their preferred artworks
à Resources set aside for the development of platform
