This study explores the current state of metadata-creation practices across digital repositories and collections by using data collected from a nationwide survey of mostly cataloging and metadata professionals. Results show that MARC, AACR2, and LCSH are the most widely used metadata schema, content standard, and subjectcontrolled vocabulary, respectively. Dublin Core (DC) is the second most widely used metadata schema, followed by EAD, MODS, VRA, and TEI. Qualified DC’s wider use vis-a-vis Unqualified DC (40.6 percent versus 25.4 percent) is noteworthy. The leading criteria in selecting metadata and controlled-vocabulary schemata are collection-specific considerations, such as the types of resources, nature of the collection, and needs of primary users and communities. Existing technological infrastructure and staff expertise also are significant factors contributing to the current use of metadata schemata and controlled vocabularies for subject access across distributed digital repositories and collections. Metadata interoperability remains a major challenge. There is a lack of exposure of locally created metadata and metadata guidelines beyond the local environments. Homegrown locally added metadata elements may also hinder metadata interoperability across digital repositories and collections when there is a lack of sharable mechanisms for locally defined extensions and variants.

/pdf/metadata-creation-practices-in-digital-repositories-and-2yyd1e0hsn.pdf

Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and Collections: Schemata, Selection Criteria, and Interoperability

When many collections are 1 brought together in a federation or aggregation, the attributes of the original collections can become difficult to discern Collection-level 2 metadata has the potential to provide important context about the purpose and features of individual collections, but the qualitative aspects of collections are difficult to describe in a systematic way This article reports on a content analysis of collection records in the Digital Collections and Content (DCC) aggregation, conducted to analyze the kinds of substantive and purposeful information represented across 202 cultural heritage collections We found that the free-text Description field often provides more accurate and complete representation of subjects and object types than the specified fields; it consistently represents properties such as uniqueness, importance, comprehensiveness, provenance, and creator of items in digital collection, and other vital contextual information about the intentions of collectors and the

/pdf/evaluating-descriptive-richness-in-collection-level-metadata-4lgp33kj6k.pdf

Evaluating Descriptive Richness in Collection-Level Metadata

Metadata plays an important role in digital libraries. But to be useful, metadata records must be problem free. When problems are present in the metadata, resources are not correctly represented and users are not able to reap the benefits of metadata. To minimize, if not eliminate, such problems, it is essential to understand the kinds of problems that can occur in metadata records. In this paper, problems found in metadata records as reported in the literature are compared and analyzed. It is found that five categories of metadata problems can be identified. These are the problems of Incorrect Values, Incorrect Elements, Missing Information, Information Loss, and Inconsistent Value Representation. Given that these problems are detrimental to the services that can be provided by metadata, preventive or corrective measures need to be put in place so as to ensure that the benefits derived from using metadata balance the costs and efforts spent in the creation of metadata records.

An Analysis of Problems in Metadata Records

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the architectural principles and the services of the D-NET software toolkit. D-NET is a framework where designers and developers find the tools for constructing and operating aggregative infrastructures (systems for aggregating data sources with heterogeneous data models and technologies) in a cost-effective way. Designers and developers can select from a variety of D-NET data management services, can configure them to handle data according to given data models, and can construct autonomic workflows to obtain personalized aggregative infrastructures. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a definition of aggregative infrastructures, sketching architecture, and components, as inspired by real-case examples. It then describes the limits of current solutions, which find their lacks in the realization and maintenance costs of such complex software. Finally, it proposes D-NET as an optimal solution for designers and developers willing to realize aggre...

The D-NET software toolkit: A framework for the realization, maintenance, and operation of aggregative infrastructures

Collection curators develop locally defined unique fields to support local requirements. As per the guidelines of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), Simple Dublin Core is the minimum requirement for exposing metadata to aggregators. Oftentimes the level of specificity of unique local fields is not translated well to Dublin Core, which may hinder the interoperability of the item metadata record. This paper researched 21 digital collections that were hosted in CONTENTdm. The objective was to explore the use and issues of unique fields in local context and recommend best practices that will increase the interoperability of metadata for special collections.

/pdf/metadata-for-special-collections-in-contentdm-how-to-improve-32muxi388z.pdf

Metadata for Special Collections in CONTENTdm: How to Improve Interoperability of Unique Fields Through OAI-PMH

The introduction in 2001 of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) increased interest in and awareness of metadata quality issues relevant to digital library interoperability and the use of harvested metadata to build “union catalogs” of digital information resources. Practitioners have offered wide-ranging advice to metadata authors and have suggested metrics useful for measuring the quality of shareable metadata. Is there evidence of changes in metadata practice in response to such advice and/or as a result of an increased awareness of the importance of metadata interoperability? This paper looks at metadata records created over a six-year period that have been harvested by the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, and reports on quantitative and qualitative analyses of changes observed over time in shareable metadata quality.

/pdf/dublin-core-metadata-harvested-through-oai-pmh-4vmrq9nuzu.pdf

Kurt Groetsch

Papers

Dublin Core Metadata Harvested Through OAI-PMH