Descriptive metadata in the FinnishNational digital library and the role of CIDOC CRM in the standards portfolio of NDLJuha HakalaThe National Library of Finland

04/21/23 2

04/21/23 3www.kdk2011.fi

Administrative and descriptive metadata in NDLA set of mandatory elements of administrative

metadata has been agreed in December 2009› Libraries, archives and museums may need to change their

current practices significantly

• METS, PREMIS, MIX among the relevant standards

•There are no mandatory elements for descriptive metadata, but there may / will be recommended practices to improve the search results in the public interface› Usage of Generic Finnish Ontology / Thesaurus for subject

analysis in libraries, museums and archives.

04/21/23 4www.kdk2011.fi

Descriptive metadata: exchange formats› MARC 21 (http://www.loc.gov/marc/) & FINMARC

› Dublin Core (http://www.dublincore.org/) & MODS

› EAD (Encoded Archival Description; http://www.loc.gov/ead/)

› EAC (Encoded Archival Context; http://www.library.yale.edu/eac/)

› CDWA (Categories for the Description of Works of Art; http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/cdwa/)

› CIDOC-CRM (CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model; http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/)

› SPECTRUM (Standard ProcEdures for CollecTions Recording Used in Museums; http://www.mda.org.uk/spectrum.htm)

› VRA Core (http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/index.html)

› Film identification - Minimum set of metadata for cinematographic works (EN 15744)

04/21/23 5www.kdk2011.fi

Metadata processes: public interfaceThe relevant elements of 11 metadata formats used for data exchange will be normalised into the internal format of the NDL public interface (in CIDOC CRM terms: NDL materialized access system)

Internal format is a dead end: its design will be solely based on the user requirements related to search & display of records in the public interface; metadata will never be converted from there to other system

Metadata records are harvested with OAI-PMH from the source systems; if necessary, this process can be repeated

04/21/23 6www.kdk2011.fi

Metadata processes: public interface (2)Normalisation involves two distinct steps

1.Mapping of elements

2.Normalisation of data (e.g. Date information)

Format experts will be responsible of mappings

Not clear to what extent existing tools such as VMF can and

will be used; this depends on how “standard” the internal format will be

Data normalisation will be carried out by IT specialists

04/21/23 7www.kdk2011.fi

ChallengesLack of detailed understanding of incoming metadata

Formats & cataloguing rules may have been used in a creative manner

There are local elements which may be relevant for public interface and other systems -> local modifications for normalisation rules

No off-the-shelf mappings between all 11 formats

Each new 3rd party system may require a lot of work

Lack of rigorous authority control / authority database

One person / organisation, many names (Kustaa Mauri Armfelt, Gustav Mauritz Armfelt)

Diversity – records may have little in common

04/21/23 8www.kdk2011.fi

The role of CIDOC CRMCataloguing format in the Muusa (Muse) system

Common tool for the exchange of “curated knowledge of museums”

One of the 11 exchange formats in the NDL project

When CRM has been harmonised with the models used in libraries and archives (and when the necessary migration tools have been developed), it could be used as a means for exchanging curated knowledge of libraries, archives and museums

As a rich and extensible ontology, CRM can accommodate “everything” much more easily than e.g. MARC 21.

www.kdk2011.fi