March 15, 2000 Howard Rosenbaum [email protected] Metadata: Information Access for the New...
66
March 15, 2000 Howard Rosenbaum [email protected] Metadata: Information Access for the New Century Indiana Library Federation Annual Indiana Library Federation Annual Meeting Meeting p://www.slis.indiana.edu/hrosenba/www/Pres/metadata00/index.h
-
Upload
frederick-edwards -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of March 15, 2000 Howard Rosenbaum [email protected] Metadata: Information Access for the New...
March 15, 2000Howard Rosenbaum
Metadata: Information Access for the New Century
Indiana Library Federation Annual MeetingIndiana Library Federation Annual Meeting
Metadata: Information Access for the New Century
Indiana Library Federation Annual MeetingIndiana Library Federation Annual Meeting
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/hrosenba/www/Pres/metadata00/index.html
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
I. Introduction
• The state of the net today
• What is metadata and why do we need it?
II. What different metadata schemes are available?
• Dublin Core and Warwick Framework
• Digital Object Identifier
• Resource Description Format
• Persistent URL
III. What does metadata mean for information management in libraries?
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
I. Introduction
• The state of the net today
“...At some point, the Internet has to stop looking like the world’s biggest rummage sale.
For taming this particular frontier, the right people are librarians, not cowboys. The Internet is made of information, and nobody knows more about how to order information than librarians, who have been pondering that problem for thousands of years.”Rennie, J. (1997). Civilizing the Internet. Scientific American. 6.
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
World Total 275.54 million
Africa 2.46 million
Asia/Pacific 54.90 million
Europe 71.99 million
Middle East 1.29 million
Canada & USA 136.06 million
South America 8.79 million
How many are online?
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
According to the Internet Software Consortium, in Jan 2000 there were 72,398,092 hosts in the nethttp://www.isc.org/ds/WWW-200001/report.html
“The publicly indexable World Wide Web now contains about 800 million pages, encompassing about 6 terabytes of text data”
“Our results show that search engines are increasingly falling behind in their efforts to index the web”
Lawrence and Giles (1999). Accessibility of information on the web. Nature 400 (July 8). 107, 108
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Coverage
Search engine coverage of the publicly indexable web has decreased substantially “with no engine indexing more than about 16% of web pages”
Unequal access
Search engines are typically more likely to index sites that have more links to them (more ‘popular’ sites)
They are also more likely to index US sites than non-US sites and commercial sites rather than educational sites
Out of date
Indexing of new or modified pages by just one of the major search engines can take months
http://www.wwwmetrics.com/
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Information distribution
83% of sites contain commercial content and 6% contain scientific or educational content
1.5% of sites contain pornographic content
Low metadata use
The simple HTML “keywords” and “description” metatags are only used on the homepages of 34% of sites
Only 0.3% of sites use the Dublin Core metadata standard
http://www.wwwmetrics.com/
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Some observations
The Internet was never intended to be a tool for information organization and retrieval
Network resources are proliferating rapidly, so some organization and method of access (beyond browsing) is needed
These resources increasing at an increasing rate (we are helping)
Material on the net is quirky, transient, and chaotically archived
Because of the decentralized nature of the net, it is clear that an imposed scheme is unworkable
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
• So what is metadata and why do we need it?
The Internet is full. Go away.
Metadata may be one way for us to find what we need when we need it and in the form we want
“The concept of metadata predates the Web, having … been coined ... in the 1960s to describe datasets effectively. Metadata is data about data, and ... provides basic information such as the author of a work, the date of creation, links to any related works, etc.”Miller. P. (1996). Metadata for the Masses. Ariadne. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/metadata-masses/
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
When we search, we find that there are many more irrelevant hits in a typical search engine return page
What good is a search that returns 47,000 documents for the phrase “dublin core”?
“Metadata is information that describes other information sources. [It is] a potential remedy to the problem of finding relevant information on the Internet”Thomas, C.T. and Griffin, L.S. (1999). Who will create metadata for the Internet. First Monday. 3(12). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/thomas/index.html
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
In addition, there is the interesting question of the type of metadata that is appropriate for the web
“There is an obvious requirement for metadata, [it] must be of a form suitable for interpretation both by the search engines and by human beings, and it must also be simple to create so that any web page author may easily describe the contents of their page and make it immediately both more accessible and more useful”Miller. P. (1996). Metadata for the Masses. Ariadne. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/metadata-masses/
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Metadata is the information necessary to identify, locate, organize, and access an electronic resource
It describes what can be said about something and what people can do with it (rights)
It describes datasets concisely using a standard format
For this reason it has the unique ability of making all metadata records equal in worth
Metadata records provide information about data in a similar way that library catalogues provide information about books
A catalogue facilitates searching for particular topics or author(s) - metadata is searchable in a comparable way.
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
There are two levels of this problem
Organizing an existing collection so that it is accessible over the Internet
The American Memory Project at: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ammemhome.html
Berkeley Digital Sunsite collections at: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Admin/collection.html
Developing schemes to organize directories of networked information and search tools
This is being done with search engines and metadata
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Who uses metadata?
Business uses of metadata
External: advertising and search engine placement
Internal: management of internal digital documents
Academic uses of metadata
To provide a scheme for organizing digital information
For extending access to these materials
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Types of metadata
Descriptive (access)
Description: captions, keywords or categories
Access points, location, identifier
Relationship to other objects
File type, size or creation date
Administrative
Management information
Provenance: authentication, document conversion info
Rights, terms and conditions
Structural
Putting the object together from its logical components
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Benefits of metadata
For the producer
Ability to provide relevant details about the resource
Ability to provide information which is not in the resource (e.g. descriptive text for images or executable files)
ability to highlight most important aspects of resource
For the indexing service
No need to guess about resource content
Highly structured data to index
Less bandwidth, more efficient, easier to maintain
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
For the user
More precise results via retrieval on surrogate content
Field-based searching
Access to non-textual resources
Less information overload
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Metadata can support many potential applications:
Resource discoveryContent ratingsE-commerceAuthenticationData managementIntellectual property rights managementDigital preservationSearching, locationAuthenticationQuality/ratingSemantic interoperabilityResource management
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
There are two levels at which the problem can be attacked
Classifying and organizing a core collection of digital materials
The questions: what to collect, how to organize it, how to maintain it, and how to provide access to it
Creating directories, search tools, metadata schemes and other means of access to digital materials outside
the core collection
The questions: what to include, why, maintenance, and the provision of access
These questions are becoming increasingly important in the design of digital libraries
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
I. Introduction
• The state of the net today
• What is metadata and why do we need it?
II. What different metadata schemes are available?
• Dublin Core and Warwick Framework
• Digital Object Identifier
• Resource Description Format
• Persistent URL
III. What does metadata mean for information management in libraries?
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
One suggestion is to use “metadata”
The “Dublin Core Metadata Program” is one example
What are the necessary elements that should be used to describe networked information?
This was discussed at an OCLC workshop in 1995
Goals
Fostering a common understanding of the needs, strengths, shortcomings, and solutions of stakeholders
Reaching consensus on a core set of metadata elements to describe networked resources
http://www.oclc.org:5047/oclc/research/conferences/metadata/dublin_core_report.html
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
A small set of metadata elements would be valuable
It would encourage authors and publishers to provide metadata, in a form that automated resource discovery tools could collect
It would encourage the creation of network publishing tools containing a template for metadata elements, simplifying the task of creating metadata records
This type of record could serve as the basis for a more detailed cataloging record if the need arises
If something like the Dublin Core becomes a standard, metadata records will be able to be understood across user communities
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Defined Universal Bibliographic Language for INternet and Coherent Online REsource
It is a minimal information resource description set
It is intended for organization and resource discovery on the web
It will improve searching with simple resource description semantics
Researchers have built a consensus around a core element set that is
Simple and intuitive
Cross-disciplinary
International
Flexible
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The Dublin core metadata element set supports resource discovery because it is:
Easy for authors and content managers to create and maintain
Interoperable, extensible, and platform independent
Syntax-independent
Intended for, but not limited to, network resources
Intended to be embedded, but needn’t be
Not intended to meet complete metadata needs of any given community
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
These are the elements in the Dublin Core
Title: The name of the object
Author: The person(s) primarily responsible for the intellectual content of the object
Subject/keywords: The topic addressed by the work
Typically expressed as keywords, key phrases or classification codes that describe a topic of the resource
Description: An account of the content of the resource
May include but is not limited to an abstract, table of contents, reference to a graphical representation of content or a free-text account of the content
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Publisher: The agent or agency responsible for making the object available
Date: A date associated with an event in the life cycle of the resource YYYY-MM-DD
ObjectType: The genre of the object, such as novel, poem, or dictionary
Format: The data representation of the object, or the physical or digital manifestation of the resource,
Typically the media-type or dimensions of the resource
May be used to determine the software, hardware or other equipment needed to display or operate it
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Resource Identifier: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context, using string or number conforming to a formal identification system
URI, URL, DOI, ISBN
Relation: Relationship to other objects
Source: Objects, either print or electronic, from which this object is derived, if applicable
Coverage: The extent or scope of the content of the resource
Will include spatial location (geographic coordinates or a place name), temporal period (a period label, date, or date range) or jurisdiction (a named administrative entity)
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
OtherAgent/contributor: The person(s), (editors and transcribers) who have made other significant intellectual contributions to the work
Language: Language of the intellectual content
Rights Management: information about rights held in and over the resource
Using the Dublin Core:
dc.title=The Book of Me
dc.creator=Me
dc.subject=My life
dc.subject=All about me
dc.publisher=The Press of Me
dc.contributor=Only me
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Here’s what it might look like embedded in an HTML document:
<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>The Home Page of Me</TITLE>
<META NAME="package" CONTENT="(TYPE=begin) Dublin Core">
<META NAME="DC.title" CONTENT="The story of me"><LINK REL=SCHEMA.dc HREF="http://purl.org/dublin_core_elements #title">
<META NAME="DC.subject" CONTENT=”biography, fascinating person, me"> <LINK REL=SCHEMA.dc HREF="http://purl.org/dublin_core_elements#subject">
<META NAME="DC.description" CONTENT="A hard hitting biography"> <LINK REL=SCHEMA.dc HREF="http://purl.org/dublin_core_elements#description>
<META NAME="DC.creator" CONTENT="Howard Rosenbaum"> <LINK REL=SCHEMA.dc HREF="http://purl.org/dublin_core_elements#creator>
</HEAD>
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The Warwick Framework
At the Warwick Workshop, researchers developed a “container architecture” known as the Warwick Framework
The goal was to create an architecture that associates diverse types of metadata with a resource
It is a mechanism for logically and physically aggregating distinct “packages” of metadata.
The Framework is an advance because:
It allows the designers of individual metadata sets to focus on specific requirements without concerns for generalization
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The syntax of each metadata set can vary in conformance with semantic requirements, community practices, and functional processing requirements
The management of and responsibility for specific metadata sets is left to respective “communities of expertise”
It promotes interoperability by allowing tools and agents to selectively access and manipulate individual packages and ignore others
It permits access to different metadata sets that are related to the same object to be separately controlled
It flexibly accommodates future metadata sets by not requiring changes to existing sets or the programs that make use of them
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Digital object identifiershttp://www.doi.org/
This is an initiative from international book and journal publishers
It is a new identification system to be used for all digital content
The DOI system provides a unique identification for that content, protecting intellectual property
It also provides a way to link users of the materials to the rights holders themselves to facilitate automated digital commerce in the new digital environment
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Developed and tested over the last year, the DOI system is now being used by more than a dozen U.S. and European publishers in a pilot program that has been running since July
Participation in Phase Two of the Prototype was extended to all publishers at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October 1997
DOI will be a persistent means to authenticate content to insure that what the customer is requesting is what is being sent
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The DOI System has three parts, the identifier, the directory, and the database.
The identifier is made up of two components
The first element, the prefix, is assigned to the publisher by the Directory Manager
However, at this phase of the Prototype, the prefixes all begin with 10 to designate the Directory Manager making the assignment of the prefix
This is followed by a number designating the publisher who will be depositing the individual DOIs
Publishers may chose to request a prefix for each imprint or product line, or may use a single prefix
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The second element, following a slash mark, is the suffix
This is the designation assigned by the publisher to the specific content being identified
Many use recognized international standards for their suffixes
If they do so, they are encouraged to indicate the standard being used by preceding it with a code
The suffix can follow any system of the publisher’s choosing, and be assigned to objects of any size - book, article, abstract, chart - or any file type - text, audio, video, image or software
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
An object (book) may have one DOI, and a component within that object (chapter) may have another DOI
The publisher decides the level of identification based on the nature of objects sold and distributed over the Internet
The suffix can be as simple as a sequential number or a publishers' own internal numbering system
10.1002/[ISBN]0-471-58064-3
Prefix Suffix
Directory Registrant Code Item # Prefix (Optional)
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The Directory:
The DOI system acts as a routing system
Digital content may change ownership or location over time, so the DOI system uses a central directory
When a user clicks on a DOI, a message is sent to the central directory where the current web address associated with that DOI appears
This location is sent back to the user’s browser with a message telling it to “go to this particular net address.”
In a second the user sees a “response screen” - a Web page - on which the publisher offers the reader either the content itself, or further information about the object how to obtain it
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
When the object moves to a new server or the copyright holder sells the product, one change is recorded in the directory and all subsequent readers are sent to the new site
The DOI remains reliable and accurate because the link to the associated information or source of the content is easily and efficiently changed
The database
Information about the object, beyond simply the response screen is maintained by the publisher
It might include the content or the information on where and how to obtain the content or other related data
The information that the user has access to in response to a DOI query is the third component of the DOI system
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
The DOI is being developed to conform to, and take advantage of, all relevant international standards
The syntax of the DOI is being proposed as NISO standard Z39.84
DOI metadata will be expressed in RDF using XML
DOI conforms to the syntax for URNs laid down by IETF
DOI has aligned with Interoperability of Data in ECommerce Systems (INDECS)
INDECS uses the current major initiatives of structured metadata (including Dublin Core and IFLA) to define a common metadata model for ecommerce.
The DOI Foundation is a member of the W3 and is in close contact with standardisation activities from ISO and others as well as initiatives from WIPO and other major bodies
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Examples of DOI Usage
An article reference found on the net is linked to an abstract and information about the availability of full text
A reader of one article was linked to related material including similar articles, or books.
A reader using DOIs saw the full text of an article,the Table of Contents of the journal in which the article appeared
She could subscribe to the journal, purchase a book, or order the content for later delivery
A user was able to use the DOI to automatically contact a help service, or download the current driver for a software product
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
RDF: Resource Description Framework 2/99
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) initiative
W3C’s (RDF) provides a generic metadata architecture
It is a specification currently being developed to support the definition of metadata across the web.
It describes how metadata for content is defined in web documents
This metadata is descriptive information about the structure and content of information in a document
RDF is useful for describing information about indexing, navigating and searching a site, as well as push channel definitions and digital signatureshttp://www.w3c.org/RDF/
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
RDF is the instantiation of the Warwick Framework for the Web
The basic RDF data model consists of three object types:
Resource: anything that can be specified by a URI, such as a web page, an entire web site, a specific newsgroup message
Properties: characteristics or attributes of a resource, along with some notion of meaning, valid values, etc.
Statements: resource + named property + value of property
This is expressed as a “tuple” {subject predicate object}
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
It will be the foundation for an architecture for metadata on the Web
Resource description
Electronic commerce
Site mapping
Third party rating
Digital signatures
Search engine data collection (web crawling)
Digital library collections
Distributed authoring
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Using XML, it might look like this:
<RDF xmlns:DC="http://purl.org/DC">
<Description about="http://www.w3.org/folio.html">
<DC:Title>The W3C Folio 1999</DC:Title>
<DC:Creator>W3C Communications Team</DC:Creator>
<DC:Date>1999-03-10</DC:Date>
<DC:Subject>Web development, World Wide Web Consortium, Interoperability of the Web</DC:Subject>
</Description>
</RDF>
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
MARBI is an ALA committee that advises LOC on changes to USMARC record formats
Proposal 93-4 set major changes to accommodate bibliographic formats to account for networked information
They suggested a new set of data elements to add to the record and forced people to think of the definition of an online resource
The key element was remote access
They suggested changes to Field 256 “File Characteristics,” and lost
They recommended creating Field 856 “Electronic Location and Access” and won
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
MARC Initiatives for the identification and description of networked resourcesname of resource
acronym/initialism
producer
distributor
location
contact name and address
network access
network address
hours of service
telephone
fax
network access instructions
terminal emulation
logon instructions
logoff instructions
type of resource
size of resource
freqency of update
language of resource
profile of resource
audience
restrictions on access
authorization
source machine
databases available
other providers of database
responsibility for record maintenance
date/time of last update of directory information
local access information and guidelines
cost for use
coverage
indexing terms
What's here nowWhat's here now
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
What's new?
Field 856 is an embedded holdings field within the bibliographic record
It contains the information needed to locate digital information
The information identifies the location containing the item or from which it is available
It also contains information to retrieve the item by the access method identified in the first indicator
This information is sufficient to allow for the electronic transfer of a file, subscription to an electronic journal, or logon to a library catalog
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
856 ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
* Indicators (of which there are always two)
First Access method
0 Email
1 FTP
2 Remote login (Telnet)
8 Other
Second Undefined
# Undefined
Subfield Codes
$a - Host name (R)
$b - IP address (NR)
$c - Compression information (NR)
$d - Path (R)
$f - Filename (R)
$g - Name of publication or conference (NR)
$h - Processor of request (NR)
$i - Instruction (R)
$k - Password (NR)
$l - Logon/login (NR)
$m - Contact person for information, assistance (R)
$n - Name of location of host in $a (NR)
$p - Port (NR)
$q - File mode (NR)
$s - File size (R)
$t - Terminal emulation (R)
$x - Non-public note (R)
$z - Public note (R)
$2 - Source of access (NR)
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
OCLC’s Persistent URL (PURL) projecthttp://purl.oclc.org/
Functionally, a PURL is a URL with three parts
Protocol: this is used to access the PURL resolver
This protocol may differ from that used to access the resource associated with the PURL
Resolver address: the IP address or domain name of the PURL resolver
This portion of the PURL is resolved by the Domain Name Server (DNS)
Name: user-assigned name
Note: This may differ from the name of the resource in the associated URL
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Instead of pointing directly to the location of an Internet resource, a PURL points to an intermediate resolution service
The PURL resolution service associates the PURL with the actual URL and returns the URL to the client
The client can then complete the URL transaction in the normal fashion.
The advantage of PURLs is that they persist over time no matter where the page moves
http://purl.oclc.org/your.address/yourfile.html
protocol resolver address filename
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
CLI ENT
PURLSERVER
RESOURCESERVER
PURL
URL
URL
RESOURCE
The model works something like this:
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
I. Introduction
• The state of the net today
• What is metadata and why do we need it?
II. What different metadata schemes are available?
• Dublin Core and Warwick Framework
• Digital Object Identifier
• Resource Description Format
• Persistent URL
III. What does metadata mean for information management in libraries?
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
III. What does metadata mean for information management in libraries?
There are social and technical issues in the use of metadata
Metadata use requires collaboration because it provides little benefit if authors simply add whatever metadata they like to their resources
People have to agree on the metadata schemes to use (purposes and values of the scheme)
To reach agreement, people must be willing to abandon old procedures and adopt new methods
It is critical to address the social aspects of metadata early and often
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Issues:
Implementing new ways of storing and retrieving information requires the cooperation of various stakeholders
This means that education is necessary for those who may never see a metadata record up close and personal
It requires attention to staffing and work flow
In a practical sense, it is difficult to find people with the specialized skills needed to evaluate, implement, and maintain systems that exploit metadata
The administration should understand that involvement with metadata will require commitment of time and resources for staff training and education
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Convincing creators of digital information to use metadata
For a library to use metadata, the creators of digital documents must embed it in the document
This is not a trivial because adding metadata is an investment of time and effort
Librarians can help creators work with metadata but should not take responsibility for putting it in documents and files
This is because metadata is embedded in the work itself and will rarely if ever be directly controlled by the librarian
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Convincing librarians to understand metadata and tools which exploit it
Metadata is a tool, not a solution
Librarians must understand metadata and possess certain skills in order to make it useful for library patrons
Introducing entirely new systems for information access may undermine the goal of providing integrated access to all the library's holdings
It may requires that librarians and patrons to learn new skills
For these reasons and others, some librarians may feel that it is not worthwhile to work with metadata
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Who will be responsible for creating and maintaining metadata?
Publisher side
Author
Webmaster
Institution
Service side
Search service
Third party creators
How will it be done?
Automatically generated
Hand crafted
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Technical Issues
Compatibility with present access mechanisms and data
One issue when introducing metadata is to retain compatibility with existing access mechanisms
The catalog is the primary access point to the vast majority of library resources
MARC has become the accepted standard for exchange of library information and has heavily influenced storage and display of information
It is a not wise to become dependent on a technology that is incompatible with MARC
There should be a compelling case to believe that a technology will become dominant or that migration will be possible
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
There are no widely accepted metadata standards yet
Some efforts have attracted interest, but use is infrequent and inconsistent
Librarians are interested in the Dublin Core because its elements transfer relatively easily to MARC
But the DC does not doc well with resources that don't behave like paper documents
Another problem with the DC is that it defines a minimal set of elements and further development seems to have stopped
There is no guarantee that metadata generated today will be useful for providing access to documents in the futureBanerje, K. (1999). Practical Applications of Metadata at Oregon State Universityhttp://ucs.orst.edu/~banerjek/papers/ola1999.html
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Libraries Working Group
Working Group Chair: Rebecca Guenther [email protected]
Working Group Charter:
Foster increased operability between DC and library metadata by identifying issues and solutions;
Keep the library community informed on DCdevelopments;
Consider reasons to experiment more widely with Dublin Core in libraries;
Build a library Implementors community;
Explore the need for a cross domain namespace(s) to register non-DC elements and qualifiers needed by the library community
http://purl.oclc.org/dc/groups/libraries.htm
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
What will information professionals have to learn?
The range of applicable metadata schemes, their strengths and weaknesses
How to apply appropriate schemes to digital information
The ways in which various metadata schemes facilitate resource discovery
How they affect the administration of digital information, information security, documentation, data mining…
The relationship between standards and metadata
How to test and evaluate various metadata schemes
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
A challenge for information professionals is to work with different metadata schemes
This involves developing metadata “crosswalks”
Fluid capability to work with same data in different metadata structures
Requires agreement on semantics
Requires standardized mappings for interoperability
It will involve working with metadata in two forms
Embedded with data
Independent of items
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Here are an examples of a metadata crosswalk from Dublin Core to MARC
The conversion of DC style record involves
Skeletal record for enhancement
Incorporating DC record into MARC database Subject and Keywords
Simple: 653$a (Index term--Uncontrolled)
Complex: If scheme=LCSH: 650$a
If scheme=LCC: 050$a
If scheme=DDC: 082$a
If scheme=(other): 650$a with $2 (code)
This enables communication of the DC record in MARC
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Here are some other examples of crosswalks:
DC/MARC/GILS Crosswalkhttp://www.loc.gov/marc/dccross.html
MARC/FGDChttp://alexandria.sdc.ucsb.edu/public-documents/metadata
/ fgdc2marc.html
GILS/MARChttp://www.usgs.gov/gils/prof_v2.html#annex_b
Also:
Dublin Core to FGDC
MARC to SGML
Crosswalks allows resource discovery across syntaxes
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Examples of metadata schemes
Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) http://www.uic.edu/orgs/tei/
Global Information Locator Service (GILS) http://www.gils.net/index.html
Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI) http://www.cimi.org/
Encoded Archival Description (EAD) http://lcweb.loc.gov/ead/
Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Metadata revealed!
3.15.00
Nordic Metadata Project http://linnea.helsinki.fi/meta/
HotOil: Distributed Searching over Heterogeneous Information Sourceshttp://www.dstc.edu.au/Research/Projects/hotoil/
National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) http://www.nbii.gov/index.html
Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/desire/overview/rev_03.htm
Interoperability of Data in ECommerce Systems (INDECS) http://www.indecs.org/
This presentation is on the web at:http://www.slis.indiana.edu/hrosenba/www/Pres/metadata00/index.html
