oclc research @ u of calgary: new directions for metadata workflows across libraries, archives,...
Post on 12-Jan-2015
3.094 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Research
Scene setting: New directions for metadata workflows across libraries, archives, museums
Günter WaibelKaren Smith-YoshimuraMerrilee ProffittThom Hickey
University of CalgaryFebruary 10th 2010
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
2
Taylor Family Digital Library
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
3
Sheila CannellDirector, Library ServicesUniversity of Edinburgh
LA
M:
Cam
pu
s
Con
text
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
4
Sheila CannellDirector, Library ServicesUniversity of Edinburgh
“I'm really quite convinced that what we have to do is to boost up the whole area of what would be called the intellectual capital of the university, which I think
happens within our special collections, within our
archives (both those that are older and those that are
being created now), and in our museums. I'm really
interested in how we reposition the traditional
library into that more general area.”
LA
M:
Cam
pu
s
Con
text
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
5
Anne Van CampDirector, Smithsonian Institution Archives
LA
M:
Op
portu
nity
&
Ch
alle
ng
e
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
6
Anne Van CampDirector, Smithsonian Institution Archives
LA
M:
Op
portu
nity
&
Ch
alle
ng
e
We are 19 museums, 9 research centers that are
scattered across the world, we have 18 different archives, we have 1 library, but that library has 20 branches, and we have
1 zoo. So it's a rather complicated place, and you can imagine the challenge we face
in trying to bring all of this disparate information
together.
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
7
Princeton
Smithsonian
Victoria & Albert
U of Edinburgh Yale
OCLC Research LAM Workshops
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
8
Beth McKillopKeeper of Asia, Victoria & Albert Museum
On
e
Searc
h
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
9
Beth McKillopKeeper of Asia, Victoria & Albert Museum
“The William Morris question remains with us. How do you show what the V&A has to offer to students interested in William Morris: designs by William Morris, archival materials by William Morris, and library books about William Morris.”
Sin
gle
S
earc
h
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
10
V&A Core Systems Integration Project (CSIP)
Strategy• Data harvesting for
archival materials• Metasearch for library
and museum content
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
11
Yale Office of Digital Assets and Infrastructure (ODAI)
slide courtesy of Meg Bellinger,Ann Green, Louis E. KingYale University's Model for Campus-wide Digital Content Strategy and Implementation (CNI 2009)
www.cni.org/tfms/2009b.fall/Presentations/cni_yale_bellinger.pdf
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
12
Strategy• LAMs as OAI data
content providers• ODAI as harvester
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
13
Outcome: SI Collections Search Center
Strategy• Central Index• Webservices
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
14
Research
New Directions for Metadata Workflows
Karen Smith-Yoshimurasmithyok@oclc.orgOCLC Research
University of CalgaryFebruary 10, 2010
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
16
Current Descriptive Metadata Practices2007 survey of 18 RLG Partners in the US and the UK
that: • had “multiple metadata creation centers” on campus• had some interaction among them
Brigham Young U.Center for Jewish HistoryChemical Heritage FoundationEmory Getty Research InstituteHarvardMinnesota Historical SocietyPrinceton Smithsonian Institution
Syracuse UniversityU. AberdeenUC Los AngelesU. CambridgeU. EdinburghU. MichiganU. MinnesotaU. WashingtonYale
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
17
Workplace environment
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
18
Materials handled
78% handle both published and unpublished items
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
19
Types of materials described
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
20
Metadata description tools
• 65% Integrated Library System (Innovative Interfaces Millennium, Exlibris/Aleph or Voyager, VTLS/Virtua, SirsiDynix/Unicorn or Horizon, etc.)
• 41% Digital Collections software (CONTENTDM, Luna Insight, MDID, etc.)
• 31% Institutional Repository software (DSpace, Digital Commons, ePrints, etc.)
• 31% Collections Management system (TMS, KE Emu, Willoughby, etc.)
• 25% Digital Asset Management system (Portfolio, TEAMS, MediaBin, ClearStory, etc.)
• 17% Archival Management system (Archivists’ Toolkit, Archon, etc.
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
21
Data structures used
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
22
Thesauri and controlled vocabularies
• Two thirds or more use:o Library of Congress Subject Headings, LC/NACO Name Authority File,
Art & Architecture Thesaurus• More than 30% use:
o Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, Thesaurus of Graphic Materials I: Subject Terms, Thesaurus of Graphic Materials II: Genre and Physical Characteristic Terms, Union List of Artist Names
• More than 10% use:o RBMS Controlled Vocabularies for Use in Rare Book and Special
Collections Cataloging, Geographic Names Information Services, Local
• Others used: o ICONCLASS, MeSH, LC Moving Image Materials, NCA Rules for
construction of personal and place names, UK Archival Thesaurus for subjects, Chemical Markup Language Dictionaries, Chicago Thesaurus, Universal Decimal Classification for Polar Libraries, Linnean names, UNESCO Thesaurus, International Astronomical Union’s Astronomy Thesaurus, British Educational Thesaurus, Society of American Archivists, Glossary of Archives and Records Terminology, Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems for archeological faunal collections
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
23
45% build and maintain one or morelocal thesaurus
(especially archives, museums, institutional repositories, digital libraries)
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
24
Image: from the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”
Who knows what’s hidden in our collections?
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
25
What percentage of your collection do you estimate has not been adequately described – and is unlikely to be described without additional resources, funding, or both?
More than 50%31% to 50%11% to 30%0% - 10%
RLG Programs Descriptive Metadata Practices Survey Results: Data Supplement http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-04.pdf
18%
35% 24%
22%
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
26
Sharing guidelines and strategies with other units
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
27
RLG Partners Metadata Creation Workflows Survey
Working Group conducted 2008 survey of RLG Partner heads or directors of units responsible for creating non-MARC metadata, either solely or in addition to MARC metadata.
• 134 responses from 67 RLG Partner institutions. • Two-thirds used the same staff to create both MARC and non-MARC metadata.• 80% reported that creating non-MARC metadata was part of their
“routine workflows”.
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
28
Crosswalks between schemas used(70% have conversion tools)
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
29
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
30
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
31
Streamlining metadata creation workflows• Descriptive metadata elements• Procedures• Standards• Tools• Authority control• Rights management• Repurposing data• Capturing data from other systems
Research
Harnessing the power of terminologies
Merrilee Proffittproffitm@oclc.orgOCLC Research
University of CalgaryFebruary 10, 2010
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
33
Making soup from the alphabet
GSAFD FAST LCSH LCTGM LCNAF GMGPC MeSH AAT ULAN TGN
CSH
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
34
Terminologies “summit,” September 2007• Establish priorities based on a “strawman”
• Search optimization• Support terminologies management & sharing (including
local terms)• Support “social interactions” that add value• Value added intelligence (creating relationships between
terminologies)
• 15 participants (45+ views!)• Lively discussion and prioritization
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
35
Key findings
Enhancing search terms“End users should be our primary concern – if they
don’t find anything, they won’t be back” – Amy Lucker, New York University
Taking “local” global“No published terminologies are going to meet all
needs. The reason we have local terminologies is because contributing to published terminologies is so difficult.” Jenn Riley, Indiana University
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
36
Enhancing search
• Using web services to…• Suggesting search terms• Adding related terms on the fly
• Depends on implementation (it’s up to you)
Query from institution in XML, passed to OCLC, XML passed back to institution, XML parsed by institution, presented in interface.
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
37
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
38
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
39
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
40
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
41
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
42
“Local” terminologies
• Additional interviews conducted with institutions who maintained “local” terminologies
• Largely unstructured, some based on existing structures (primarily AAT)
• Maintaining local terms because…• Barriers to contributing to existing structures• Perception that terms were truly local
• All interested in a cloud environment • Ease creation and maintenance of terms• Allow terms to flow into local systems • Facilitate contribution to established terminologies
Research
Names, Identities Hub,VIAF, WorldCat Identities
Thom Hickeyhickeyt@oclc.orgOCLC Research
University of CalgaryFebruary 10, 2010
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
44
Names touch everything….
AuthorsPublishersInstitutions
Musicians
Families
Government agencies
ArtistsFictional characters
Actors
Plant discoverers
Corporations
Pseudonyms
Illustrators
Editors
Translators
Correspondents
Historical figures
Directors
Scientists
Architects
Animals
Politicians
Inventors
Associations
Cartographers
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
45
Names can be ambiguous…
“John Adams”… the US president? … the US composer?… the British
mathematician & astronomer?
… the British nuclear physicist?
… or someone else?
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
46
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
47
Networking NamesAdvisory Group
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
48
Cooperative Identities Hub• Framework to concatenate and merge
authoritative information• Gateway to all forms of names without
preferring one form over another
• Use social networking model• Provide a switch to extract relevant information for re-use in own contexts• Create federated trust environment to authenticate and authorize contributors
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
49
Hub objectives• Increase metadata creation efficiency• Easier to identify identity regardless of
language or discipline
• Determine preferred form within own context• Enable contributing agencies to augment own data resources
• Expose information about personal and corporate bodies beyond original contexts
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
50
Hub functions• Searches by both people and software
applications
• Edit: Add information, merge, split, flag for deletion
• Create new entities
• Batch update
• Discussion
• Audit trail and rollback
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
51
Virtual International Authority File
• Matches names across 20 authority files• 12.5 million records• 10 million names
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
52
One persona, many representations
http://viaf.org/viaf/95216565
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
53
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
54
Other efforts
• ISNI• International Standard Name Identifier
• ORCID• Open Researcher and Contributor ID
• WorldCat Identities• A page for every name in WorldCat
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
55
International StandardName Identifier• Driven by ‘rights’ holders• Need standard way to exchange information• OCLC
• Participating in standards effort• Matching of test files• VIAF may be used as base file
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
56
Open Researcher and Contributor ID• Driven by scientific publishers• Need to exchange information, make systems
more usable• Mostly interested authors of journal literature• OCLC
• Participating in group• Possibly sharing metadata• Possibly working on matching
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
57
WorldCat Identities
• A page for every name• 25 million personal names• 30 million names total• Includes imaginary characters, horses, etc.
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
58
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
59
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
60
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
61
ResearchUniversity of Calgary – February 10th 2010
62
Collaboration Continuum
top related