1. A Comparative Analysis Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D., USA Presented at IFLA satellite postconference “Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the Digital Environment and Semantic Web” August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

2.  Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) 2 O.Zavalina'2012

3.  Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) Used in digital libraries to organize information 3 O.Zavalina'2012

4.  Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) Used in digital libraries to organize information Functions supported:  Find  Identify  Select  Obtain ( IFLA, 1998; 2008 ) 4 O.Zavalina'2012

5. 5 draws data values from the natural language: Estonian capital Tallinn is located in Northern Europe IFLA’s Classification and Indexing Section Free-text metadata O.Zavalina'2012

6. 6 draws data values from the natural language: Estonian capital Tallinn is located in Northern Europe IFLA’s Classification and Indexing Section draws data values from formally- maintained list of terms Free-text metadata Controlled-vocabulary metadata draws data values from formally- maintained list of terms O.Zavalina'2012

7.  “Metadata providing a high-level description of an aggregation of individual items” (Macgregor, 2003)  Describes collection as a whole  Has long been used in archival community  Is now used in digital libraries Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 7 O.Zavalina'2012

8. Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 8 O.Zavalina'2012 Example of collection-level metadata record from The European Library

9. Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 9 O.Zavalina'2012 Example of collection-level metadata record from The European Library Free-text Controlled- vocabulary

10.  “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) 10 O.Zavalina'2012

11.  “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries 11 O.Zavalina'2012

12.  “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements: 12 O.Zavalina'2012

13.  “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements:  free-text Description 13 O.Zavalina'2012

14.  “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements:  free-text Description  controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object], Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage 14 O.Zavalina'2012

15. Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections O.Zavalina'2012 15

16. Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them O.Zavalina'2012 16

17. Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to: O.Zavalina'2012 17

18. Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:  give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000) O.Zavalina'2012 18

19. Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:  give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000)  help narrow search scope to increase precision and ease of use O.Zavalina'2012 19

20. Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:  give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000)  help narrow search scope to increase precision and ease of use  assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003; 2005) O.Zavalina'2012 20

21.  Most digital libraries only create free-text collection-level metadata default in content management systems (e.g., DSpace) saves time of metadata creator 21 O.Zavalina'2012 Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection from American Memory and Opening History

22.  Most digital libraries only create free-text collection-level metadata default in content management systems (e.g., DSpace) saves time of metadata creator  Even when available, controlled- vocabulary collection-level metadata is often NOT displayed to the end user 22 O.Zavalina'2012 Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection from American Memory and Opening History

23.  Fitness for the purpose of supporting user tasks: find identify select obtain 23 O.Zavalina'2012

24.  Fitness for the purpose of supporting user tasks: find identify select obtain  Quality criteria Accuracy Consistency Completeness … 24 O.Zavalina'2012

25.  Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008) 25 O.Zavalina'2012

26.  Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)  Research evaluating collection-level metadata is in its infancy 26 O.Zavalina'2012

27.  Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)  Research evaluating collection-level metadata is in its infancy Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)  Single digital library Zavalina (2011)  compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3 large-scale digital libraries 27 O.Zavalina'2012

28.  Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata 28 O.Zavalina'2012

29.  Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields 29 O.Zavalina'2012

30.  Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields  One-way complementarity  Two-way complementarity  Redundancy 30 O.Zavalina'2012

31.  Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields  One-way complementarity  Two-way complementarity  Redundancy across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA 31 O.Zavalina'2012

32. 32 O.Zavalina'2012

33. 33 O.Zavalina'2012

34. 34 O.Zavalina'2012

35.  ↑↑↑ In 22% of records free-text Description complemented 2+ controlled- vocabulary subject metadata fields.  ↔ Two-way complementarity occurred in 40% of records mostly between Description and Subject 35 O.Zavalina'2012

36. 36  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) O.Zavalina'2012

37. 37  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”) O.Zavalina'2012

38. 38  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”)  Description specifies dates in Temporal Coverage “1930 through 2011”. O.Zavalina'2012

39. 39  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”)  Description specifies dates in Temporal Coverage “1930 through 2011”.  Description complements Object Type: genre information (“children’s lore,” “occupational lore,” “performances,” “interviews,” “surveys”). O.Zavalina'2012

40.  Subject lists additional topics not covered by Description (e.g., “Architecture”). 40 O.Zavalina'2012

41. 41  Subject lists additional topics not covered by Description (e.g., “Architecture”).  Geographic Coverage provides spatial information absent in Description United States (nation) Southern U.S. (general region) Florida (state). O.Zavalina'2012

42.  “towns of Coal City, Braidwood, and Wilmington” in Description  “dance instruction manuals, anti-dance manuals, histories, treatises on etiquette” in Description  “Illinois (state), Grundy (county)” in Geographic Coverage  “Ballroom dancing—United States” in Subjects ↔↔↔↔ 42 O.Zavalina'2012

43.  “newspaper photographs” in Description  “contemporary, … European age of chivalry, … prior to 1900” in Description  “photographs; archival finding aids” in Object Type  “1200-1900” in Temporal Coverage ↔↔↔↔ 43 O.Zavalina'2012

44.  Only in European Library (19%)  Examples: DescriptionGeo. Coverage Estonia Ljubljana Netherlands DescriptionTemp. Coverage 1763 DescriptionSubject photographs 44 O.Zavalina'2012

45.  High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata 45 O.Zavalina'2012

46.  High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata  More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata  mutually complementary 46 O.Zavalina'2012

47.  High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata  More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata  mutually complementary allow more fully representing intellectual content of information objects 47 O.Zavalina'2012

48.  High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata  More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata  mutually complementary allow more fully representing intellectual content of information objects ultimately improve subject access for the users. 48 O.Zavalina'2012

49. Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available 49 O.Zavalina'2012

50. Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in  National standards  Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO) 50 O.Zavalina'2012

51. Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in  National standards  Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO)  International standards  Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA). 51 O.Zavalina'2012

52. Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in  National standards  Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO)  International standards  Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA). Require more extensive analysis of collection-level subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries  with different subject focus & scale  built in various countries 52 O.Zavalina'2012

53. Oksana.Zavalina@unt.edu Aitäh 53 O.Zavalina'2012

54.  Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.  Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.  Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization. Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.  Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly, 75(1), 67-85.  Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library Review, 52(6), 247-250.  Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)  Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B. McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.  Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.  Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, (pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 54 O.Zavalina'2012

55.  The European Library Sally Chambers  American Memory Christa Maher  Opening History IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content project team 55 O.Zavalina'2012