Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

An Overview of Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for E-Resources March 25, 2014 Bie-hwa Ma Chengzhi Wang.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "An Overview of Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for E-Resources March 25, 2014 Bie-hwa Ma Chengzhi Wang."— Presentation transcript:

1 An Overview of Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for E-Resources March 25, 2014 Bie-hwa Ma Chengzhi Wang

2 Acknowledgement & Announcement  Thank you for participating in the survey!  Thank all of you for participating in the workshop!  Thank all CEAL members for supporting the Task Force!  Thank all the CTP members and the CEAL ERMB Task Force members for organizing this workshop  Electronic Resources: Librarians and Vendors Round Table  9:30-11:00 pm, Thursday, March 27, Liberty Ballroom C, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown  Jointly organized by CTP, CCM, CJM, CKM, and CPS, a dialog between East Asian librarians and vendors of electronic contents.  Open to all CEAL members as well as vendors and electronic information providers

3 Survey Overview Outline  Why the Survey?  How the Survey Was Done?  What Are the Survey Results?  What to Do Next?

4 Survey Goal  Environmental scan: survey as a systematic way to get empirical data  Preliminary understanding of the level of awareness  Identify the awareness gap between librarians and vendors, and how to bridge them  Improve understanding, expand knowledge, enhance skills, and determine areas/topics to work on

5 Survey Preparation & Design  Preparation, Planning  General planning and preparation  Google form as the tool  Designing questionnaires  Deciding the length and format  Testing  Questionnaire Design  Vendor/Publisher Version and Library Version in English, carefully reviewed by metadata and non-metadata professionals in the U.S.  Translated into CJK languages with terminologies verified by professionals in Asia  Reviewing, discussing, deciding, and finalizing, in English and CJK languages

6 Survey Invitation  Participation Invitation  Inviting library professionals and support staff  Focus on academic libraries  Sent invitations through CEAL listserv and CALA (Chinese American Librarians Association) listserv in US  Post it through the listservs of Library associations, consortia, and Facebook groups in Mainland china, Taiwan, Hon Kong, and Macau  Inviting vendors/publishers  Focus on providers of e-resources  Sent English, CJK invitations to vendor/publisher sources and publisher associations via CCM, CJM and CKM

7 Survey Management & Analysis  Coordination and Organization  Arranging and rationalizing timeline, and making necessary changes  Coordinating work of sub groups, including online form, e-mail texts and attached Word files, all in English and 4 other scripts  Organizing responses, re-inputting e-mailed responses, and checking, validating, normalizing collected data  Analyzing Data  An overview of Preliminary Results: Library & Vendors  With Focus on Library Survey; with Briefing on Vendors Survey

8 Region & Library Type: 73 Participants

9 Position Library director/head 1318% Librarian5373% Non-librarian series professional (curator, archivist, etc.) 00% Support staff68% Other11%

10 Languages of Resources Primarily Managed/Served Chinese4930% Japanese3019% Korean1610% English5635% Tibetan32% Manchu32% Mongolian21% Other32%

11 Metadata from Vendors: Current & Expected

12 E-resources Metadata Received: Current & Expected

13 Use of Metadata in Knowledge Bases (KBs) by Link Resolution Services

14 Challenging Level: Following CJK-related Issues in the KBs of Link Resolutions Services Few CJK providers/publishers have interaction with link resolution services Not applicable812% 1 (least challenging)35% 212% 335% 412% 5711% 6914% 71523% 8 (most challenging)1828%

15 Challenging Level: Following CJK-related Issues in the KBs of Link Resolutions Services Link resolution service providers' lacking expertise to manage CJK resources Not applicable610% 1 (least challenging)23% 246% 312% 41016% 512% 61016% 71219% 8 (most challenging)1727%

16 Awareness of Established National & Int’l Standards for E-resources

17 Standards Vendors Follow in Supplying Metadata: Current & Expected OpenURL3214%ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, etc.389% Marc 213013%OpenURL389% ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, etc.2411%RDA379% AACR2199%DOI358% DOI188%LCSH348% LCSH188%KBART287% LC Classification188%LC Classification327% PIE-J136%Marc 21307% KBART94%Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)307% RDA94%PIE-J205% DDC84% Contributor/creator identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.) 215% Other63%AACR2184% Other classfication63%PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource174% Name authority headings, LCNAF52%ONIX123% Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)52%DDC102% PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource21%ONIX-PL102% Contributor/creator identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.)10%Other classification82% ONIX00%Other subject headings82% ONIX-PL00%Other31%

18 Anticipated Challenging Issues When Promoting Metadata Standards to Vendors 1 (least challenging) 23% 212% 323% 447% 5610% 61525% 71220% 8 (most challenging) 1931% Unawareness of the standards

19 Anticipated Challenging Issues When Promoting Metadata Standards to Vendors Standards are too complicated to understand 1 (least challenging)12% 21 358% 447% 5813% 61728% 71321% 8 (most challenging)1220%

20 Anticipated Challenging Issues When Promoting Metadata Standards to Vendors It is tough to communicate with CJK vendors/publishers in making changes 1 (least challenging)12% 21 335% 458% 5610% 61423% 71017% 8 (most challenging)2033%

21 Survey Demographics: 22 Participants of Vendors Survey Publisher1026% Vendor/Provider/Aggregator1847% Platform provider718% Identifier registry provider (e.g., DOI registration agency)25% Other13% Mainland China314% Taiwan523% Japan732% Korea627% North America15% 0-5 years627% 6-10 years418% 11-15 years627% 16+ years627%

22 Types & Languages of E-resources Primarily Provided E-books1628% Other full-text databases (journal articles, proceedings, dissertations, etc.) 1628% E-journals916% References/Indexes Databases916% Online news sources610% Maps/GIS12% Streaming media12% Other00% Japanese1130% English1027% Chinese924% Korean514% Mongolian13% Other13% Tibetan00% Manchu00%

23 Metadata Service Provision Title lists of current resources only, excluding the withdrawn titles 1133% Comprehensive title lists labeled with material status, such as withdrawn, ceased, etc. 618% Comprehensive title lists plus separate title lists/sheets for new titles and withdrawn titles 26% Free brief MARC records412% Fee-based brief MARC records26% Free full-level MARC records26% Fee-based full-level MARC records26% Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service26% URL checking service26% An automatic mechanism that facilitates easy online error report and instant fix on access and metadata problems 00% Other00%

24 Relationship with, & Frequency Updating Title Lists to, Link Resolution Services Proactively provide them with title lists with or without fee 725% Never interacted, in consideration of doing so 621% Proactively provide them with MARC records with or without fee414% Metadata available upon request414% Never interacted, have no plan of doing so311% Metadata freely downloaded from website27% Other27% Monthly429% Weekly321% Upon request321% Quarterly214% Semiannually17% Annually17% Other00%

25 Awareness of Established National and Int’l Standards for Electronic Resources Yes838% No419% No, but wish to get informatio n on this 943%

26 Awareness of E-Resources Standards & Best Practices: Library and Vendors 26 Vendors/Publishers Library Staff

27 Compliance of Standards & Best Practices: Currently Follow & Interested in Following Marc 21815%OpenURL916% Other classfication713%DOI814% OpenURL611%Marc 21712% ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers611%ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers611% PIE-J59%KBART47% KBART47%PIE-J35% DOI47%Other subject headings35% LCSH35%Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)35% Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)35%AACR224% AACR224%RDA24% RDA24%LCSH24% ONIX24%LC Classification24% ONIX-PL12%Other classification24% Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)12% Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.) 24% Other12%ONIX12% PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource00%Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)12% Other subject headings00%PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource00% LC Classification00%ONIX-PL00% Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.)00%Other00%

28 Reasons Why not Complying with Some or All of the Standards and Best Practices We will consider complying with the standards for the future resources/databases, but not for the existing ones as it is too time consuming and costly to change what we have designed 621% Such metadata do not accommodate the needs of CJK resources/scripts 518% Complying with the standards increases the product cost in human resource, facilities of hardware and software, etc. 518% Such metadata do not necessarily eliminate problems414% Unawareness of the standards311% Lack metadata expertise to provide certain metadata311% Standards are too complicated to understand14% Other14%

29 Thank You


Download ppt "An Overview of Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for E-Resources March 25, 2014 Bie-hwa Ma Chengzhi Wang."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google