some options for non-marc descriptive metadata

Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive MetadataJenn RileyTS Cataloging Division Meeting12/9/2008

Good metadata…

•Is fit for purpose•Conforms to accepted standards and/or

best practices•Doesn’t have to be created by humans

12/9/2008

2

TS Cataloging Division

Metadata formats•Predefined sets of features likely to be

necessary or useful for a specific purpose•Choosing a format others also use

improves interoperability•Can be:

▫Official standards▫Backed by professional organization▫Backed by trusted institution▫Locally developed

12/9/2008

3


Descriptive metadata

• For discovery▫ Includes both search and browse▫ In a controlled environment designed to match

target users with interesting resources▫Pushed out to the network for others to make

use of• For display

▫Gives a user the context they need to understand a resource

• Can be both objective and subjective• Usually (but not always) human-generated

12/9/2008

4


Some descriptive metadata structure standards•MARC in XML (MARCXML)•Metadata Object Description Schema

(MODS)•Dublin Core (DC)

▫Unqualified (simple)▫Qualified

12/9/2008

5


MARC in XML (MARCXML)

•Copies the exact structure of MARC21 in an XML syntax▫Numeric fields▫Alphabetic subfields

•Implicit assumption that content/value standards are the same as in MARC

12/9/2008

6


Limitations of MARCXML

•Not appropriate for direct data entry•Extremely verbose syntax•Full content validation requires tools

external to XML Schema conformance

12/9/2008

7


Best times to use MARCXML•As a transition format between a MARC

record and another XML-encoded metadata format

•Materials lend themselves to library-type description

•Want to follow library cataloging traditions

•Want XML representation to store within larger digital object but need lossless conversion to MARC

12/9/2008

8


MARCXML example

12/9/2008TS Cataloging Division

9

12/9/2008

10


MARCXML MODS DC QDC

Record format XML

Field labels Numeric

Reliance on AACR

Strong

Common method of

creationBy derivation

Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)•Developed and managed by the Library of

Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office

•First released for trial use June 2002•MODS 3.3 released January 2008•For encoding bibliographic information•Influenced by MARC, but not equivalent•Quickly gaining adoption

12/9/2008

11


Differences between MODS and MARC•MODS is “MARC-like” but intended to be

simpler•Textual tag names•Encoded in XML•Some specific changes

▫Some regrouping of elements▫Removes some elements▫Adds some elements

12/9/2008

12


Content/value standards for MODS•Many elements indicate a given content/value

standard should be used▫Generally follows MARC/AACR2/ISBD

conventions▫But not all enforced by the MODS XML schema

•Authority attribute available on many elements▫Not limited to data elements AACR2 controls

•MODS User Guidelines recommend vocabularies for many elements

12/9/2008

13


Limitations of MODS

•No lossless round-trip conversion from and to MARC

•Still largely implemented by library community only

•Tools for creation only recently starting to emerge

12/9/2008

14


Good times to use MODS

•Materials lend themselves to library-type description

•Want to reach both library and non-library audiences

•Need a reasonable level of robustness•Want XML representation to store within

larger digital object

12/9/2008

15


MODS example


16

12/9/2008

17


MARCXML MODS DC QDC

Record format XML XML

Field labels Numeric Text

Reliance on AACR

Strong Implied

Common method of


By specialists and by

derivation

Unqualified (Simple) Dublin Core•15-element set•National and international standard

▫2001: Released as ANSI/NISO Z39.85▫2003: Released as ISO 15836

•Maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)

•Other players▫DCMI Communities▫DCMI Task Groups▫DCMI Usage Board▫DCMI Advisory Board

12/9/2008

18


DCMI mission• [promote] the widespread adoption of

interoperable metadata standards and developing specialized metadata vocabularies for describing resources that enable more intelligent information discovery systems.

• The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative provides simple standards to facilitate the finding, sharing and management of information. DCMI does this by:▫Developing and maintaining international

standards for describing resources▫Supporting a worldwide community of users

and developers▫Promoting widespread use of Dublin Core

solutions

12/9/2008

19


DC Principles

•“Core” across all knowledge domains•No element required•All elements repeatable•1:1 principle

12/9/2008

20


DC encodings

•HTML <meta>•XML•RDF•[Spreadsheets]•[Databases]

12/9/2008

21


Content/value standards for DC

•None required•Some elements recommend a content or value standard as a best practice

Coverage Date Format Language Identifier

Coverage Date Format Language Identifier

12/9/2008

22


Relation Source Subject Type

Relation Source Subject Type

Some limitations of DC

•Widely misunderstood•Can’t indicate a main title vs. other

subordinate titles•No method for specifying creator roles•W3CDTF format can’t indicate date

ranges or uncertainty•Can’t by itself provide robust record

relationships

12/9/2008

23


Good times to use DC

•Cross-collection searching•Cross-domain discovery•Metadata sharing•Describing some types of simple

resources•Metadata creation by novices

12/9/2008

24


Simple DC example


25

12/9/2008

26


MARCXML MODS DC QDC


XML

RDF

(X)HTML

Field labels Numeric Text Text

Reliance on AACR

Strong Implied None

Common method of



derivation

By novices, by specialists, and by derivation

Qualified Dublin Core (QDC)

•Adds some increased specificity to Unqualified Dublin Core

•Same governance structure as DC•Same encodings as DC•Same content/value standards as DC•Listed in DMCI Terms•Additional principles

▫Extensibility▫Dumb-down principle

12/9/2008

27


Types of DC qualifiers

•Additional elements•Element refinements•Encoding schemes

▫Vocabulary encoding schemes▫Syntax encoding schemes

12/9/2008

28


Limitations of QDC

•Widely misunderstood•No method for specifying creator roles•W3CDTF format can’t indicate date

ranges or uncertainty•Split across 3 XML schemas•No encoding in XML officially endorsed by

DCMI

12/9/2008

29


Best times to use QDC

•More specificity needed than simple DC, but not a fundamentally different approach to description

•Want to share DC with others, but need a few extensions for your local environment

•Describing some types of simple resources

•Metadata creation by novices

12/9/2008

30


Qualified DC example


31

12/9/2008

32


MARCXML MODS DC QDC


XML

RDF

(X)HTML

XML

RDF

(X)HTML

Field labels Numeric Text Text Text

Reliance on AACR

Strong Implied None None

Common method of



derivation



Some other options

12/9/2008

33


•VRA Core•Darwin Core•FGDC•ETD-MS•Scholarly Works Application Profile

(SWAP)•Collection Description Application Profile•…

How do I pick one?• Robustness needed for the given materials and

users• Genre/format of materials being described • Nature of holding institution• Use and audience for the metadata• What others in the community are doing• Describing analog vs. digitized item• Mechanisms for providing relationships between

records• Plan for interoperability, including repeatability of

elements• Formats supported by your metadata creation and

delivery software

12/9/2008

34


No, really, how do I pick one?

•Every implementation is a compromise•Balance

▫Innovation and production▫Robustness and expediency▫Ideal and ease technical implementation


35

Thanks.

Slides at: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentati

ons/tscatdiv2008/tsCatalogingDivisionDec2008.ppt>


36

some options for non-marc descriptive metadata

Documents

ts cataloging division1292008

xml marcxmlcopies

xml schema conformance1292008

marc standards officefirst

marc record

trial use

use offor displaygives

larger digital object