Non-MARC Metadata for Technical Services Librarians?

Beth M. Russell

The Ohio State University

Russell.363@osu.edu

Goals

Briefly cover “metadata basics” Highlight some projects with Ohio

connections as examples Discuss implications for technical services

librarians Then discuss some more!

Introductions

Who are we? What kinds of positions are in our

libraries? What do we need to know?

What I’m Going to Say

We already know metadata Examples for discussion What do we need to know in our current

jobs? How can we apply our skills? Questions, discussions, controversy.

PLEASE!

Metadata was the Future …

It seemed liked catalogers were going to morph into metadata librarians.

In reality, we have maintained distinct roles and traditions.

Metadata is the Present …

We have to work with “metadata” colleagues. We have to know enough to plan projects,

answer questions, guide policy. We have to shake a reputation for rigidity and

narrowness. See Christine DeZelar-Tiedman, “Crashing the

Party: Catalogers as Digital Librarians.” OCLC Systems & Services 20/4, 2004.

What Do We Mean by non-MARC?

MARC *is* METADATA So are other things, like EAD, VRA, Dublin

Core, etc., which we’ll talk about more later

List is changing all the time and cannot be complete, but some types are more common in libraries than others.

Why Not Use MARC?

MARC is robust, works for many formats, and integrates into library catalog

*but* It lacks descriptive elements for many

types of resources; it’s not intuitive; and can be inflexible351 Organization & arrangement field555 Cumulative index/finding aid note

Content Guidelines vs. Schemes

Content guidelines govern what goes into records

Schemes guide how that content is structured

AACR vs. MARC, for example, but consider also LCSH and LCAF

Remember …

Even simple things like an address book can be seen as having a “metadata scheme” and perhaps their own content guidelines as well

Garbage in, garbage out regardless of the scheme

Metadata is only *part* of the delivery of digital objects (or physical objects, for that matter)

XML (Extensible Markup Language) MARC can be expressed/migrated to

XML, but usually isn’t Most other non-MARC schemes are (or

can be) expressed in XML Or in spreadsheets Or on paper … XML allows easier transfer and migration

Categories or Types of Metadata

These are not mutually exclusive Again, MARC is a good example, but not a

perfect correlation Scheme does not equal type of metadata

Descriptive Metadata

Descriptive metadata describes the content of a resource

Closely aligned to most of what we do in MARC catalogingTitleAuthorDate of creation

Administrative Metadata

Information that allows staff to locate and manage a resource

Also might mirror some other data we’re used to recordingProvenance (541 Immediate source of

acquisition)Copyright status (506 Restrictions on access)

Structural Metadata

Describes the organization or relationships among multiple objects that create a resource

Often broken out into separate document TEI, for example

Preservation Metadata

Information that facilitates long term identification, storage, and use of resources

Might be in separate document PREMIS, for example, documents

preservation events for a resource

Technical Metadata

Describes the technical details of an object Type of object governs what is recorded

(image resolution vs. video running time) May overlap with administrative metadata

File sizeColor space

Questions and Discussion?

Common Types of non-MARC Metadata with Ohio Library Examples

Dublin Core (DC) Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Visual Resources Association Core (VRA) Do these ring a bell?

Dublin Core

Developed from 1994 conference “discussion on semantics and the Web revolv[ing] around the difficulty of finding resources”

International effort, constantly growing Initiative Website

Dublin Core is Everywhere!

OhioLINK - Digital Media Center The Knowledge Bank at OSU: Home Ohio Memory Online Scrapbook

TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)

Developed around 1987, before XML “Aims to encode all the semantically

significant aspects of literary texts” National Underground Railroad Freedom

Center E-Books

Results of DLXS search

Full-text results

EAD (Encoded Archival Description) Began in mid 1990s, pre-XML Similar to TEI in that digital “version” is marked

up for content, not just display Enables sophisticated searching of archival

finding aids – more refined than an HTML “find” search and can search across collections

Online Archive of California Ohio State University Finding Aids Collection

EAD

VRA (Visual Resources Categories) VRA Core Categories “consist of a single

element set that can be applied as many times as necessary to create records to describe works of visual culture as well as the images that document them”

Recommend controlled vocabularies be used

McKenney & Hall Collection

Other schemes

METS incorporates administrative, descriptive, and structural metadata into one transmission standard. Used to ingest records, “turn” pages, etc. Manipulating complex records. Can use MODS for descriptive portion, for example.

MODS “half way between MARC and DC.” Used to map for cross-collection searching.

MODS

Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)

“Schema for a bibliographic element set that may be used for a variety of purposes, and particularly for library applications. As an XML schema, the "Metadata Object Description Schema" (MODS) is intended to be able to carry selected data from existing MARC 21 records as well as to enable the creation of original resource description records. It includes a subset of MARC fields and uses language-based tags rather than numeric ones, in some cases regrouping elements from the MARC 21 bibliographic format.”

So How Does this Affect Technical Services?

New duties? Can we “repurpose” non-MARC and

MARC data with minimal effort? Will non-MARC move into our catalogs? Is our expertise transferrable? What will the future hold?

Examples from MY Life

Grant-funded project at Texas A&M– I made it up as I went along

OhioLINK DMC metadata application profile (which is actually a scheme)

DISC metadata guidance Mapping to save cataloger time vs.

duplication of effort

Examples from YOUR Lives??

Thanks for Your Attention!

Russell.363@osu.edu