Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ISKO 2010 Conference, February 23-26, 2010 Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Locally Added Homegrown Metadata Semantics: Issues and Implications Jung-ran.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ISKO 2010 Conference, February 23-26, 2010 Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Locally Added Homegrown Metadata Semantics: Issues and Implications Jung-ran."— Presentation transcript:

1 ISKO 2010 Conference, February 23-26, 2010 Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Locally Added Homegrown Metadata Semantics: Issues and Implications Jung-ran Park Yuji Tosaka Caimei Lu Research supported through IMLS award (2006-2010)

2 22 Presenters Jung-ran Park, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Yuji Tosaka, Ph.D. Cataloging/Metadata Librarian The College of New Jersey Library, Ewing, New Jersey, USA Caimei Lu Ph.D. candidate, College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 2

3 33 Presentation outline Aim and scope of the study Previous studies Data collection & methods Study findings Conclusion/implication 3

4 44 Locally added metadata elements Proliferation of local metadata extensions and variants to accommodate domain-specific requirements Benefit: Provide rich, detailed descriptions for local communities Downside: Roadblock to metadata interoperability

5 5 Objectives of the study To gain a better understanding of the extent of the current use of locally added metadata elements and their potential effects on resource discovery and sharing across digital repositories. 5

6 66 Study questions What homegrown metadata elements are added in individual digital repositories? What are the major criteria used to add locally created homegrown metadata elements? How are local metadata practices documented and shared?

7 77 Previous studies Metadata may be of high quality within its local context, but may be compromised when taken out of this context for various reasons. (Shreeves, Riley, & Milewicz, 2006) Little empirical research on how local metadata elements are added across distributed digital repositories Park (2005), Han et al. (2009)

8 8 Previous studies: Park (2005) Analysis of 659 metadata records in three digital image collections using Dublin Core Widespread use of locally added metadata elements Some of the most frequent additions are local information such as contact information, ordering information, and acquisition. Presence of null mapping local elements such as full text, note, and scan date, although they can be mapped onto pertinent DC metadata elements. 8

9 9 Previous studies: Han et al. (2009) Analysis of locally defined unique fields created by 21 CONTENTdm-based collections using Dublin Core 107 (84.3%) out of 127 unique descriptive metadata fields can be mapped onto pertinent DC metadata elements. DC metadata semantics seems to affect the correct application of the DC metadata scheme in local contexts (see Park and Childress, 2009). 9

10 10 Data collection & methods (1) Web Survey (August 6–October 6, 2008) Participants recruitment Mailing lists of communities of metadata and cataloging professionals Individual invitations Flyers distributed at selected metadata and cataloging sessions during the 2008 ALA midwinter conference

11 11 Data collection & methods (2) 303 completed responses Participant profiles Most survey respondents engage professionally in cataloging- and metadata-related activities. Institutional profiles Academic libraries (75.2%) Public libraries (17.4%) Other institutions (7.4%)

12 12 Participant profiles Job Titles Number of Participants (N=227) Other135 44.6% Cataloger/cataloging librarian/catalog librarian99 32.7% Metadata librarian299.6% Catalog & metadata librarian268.6% Head, cataloging268.6% Electronic resources cataloger175.6% Cataloging coordinator155.0% Head, cataloging & metadata services155.0%

13 13 Professional Activities Specified in Other Category Professional ActivitiesNumber of Participants (N=99) Cataloging & metadata creation3110.2% Digital projects management237.6% Technical services175.6% Archiving165.3% Electronic resources & serials management 62.0% Library system Administration Other (e.g., education-library and information science) 62.0%

14 14 Current status of homegrown metadata element use Common practice in many digital repositories 38.0% add homegrown elements to the selected metadata scheme(s)

15 15 Metadata schemes used 15 Metadata schemePercent MARC84.2% Dublin Core66.0% EAD31.7% MODS17.8% VRA14.9% TEI12.5%

16 16 Types of homegrown metadata elements added Descriptive metadata (58.7%) Local notes and description (23.1%) Local names for person and place (22.1%) Local subjects (14.3%) Local classification (6.0%) Genre and type terms (4.5%) Administrative, technical, and preservation metadata (31.6%) Structural metadata (3.8%)

17 17 Criteria for adding homegrown metadata elements Response To reflect the nature of local collections/resources32.0% To reflect the characteristics of target audience/community of local collections 24.3% To reflect local practice of cataloging and metadata creation14.3% Due to lack of metadata description for local collections/resources from the selected metadata scheme(s) 14.3% Due to local systems7.7% Don t know1.9% Due to lack of full understanding of the selected metadata standard for local collections/resources 1.2% Other4.2%

18 18 Current status of homegrown metadata element documentation practices Are local extensions and variants allowed in local metadata guidelines? Yes 69.5% No 14.9% Do not know 15.6%

19 19 Lack of open documentation Only 19.6% of local documentation/guidelines for metadata creation are publicly available on the Web.

20 20 Conclusion/implication (1) Inward focus in current metadata creation practices Widespread use of homegrown metadata elements (nearly 40%) Does the current cost of local metadata customization make sense in light of its potential risk to effective sharing and reuse of metadata in the networked environment?

21 21 Conclusion/implication (2) Most of the homegrown descriptive elements (58.7%) are questionable as truly homegrown metadata elements because they can be replaced with relevant elements (e.g., description, subject) drawn from metadata schemes in use. 21

22 22 Conclusion/implication (3) The high occurrence of locally added administrative metadata elements encompassing technical, rights, and preservation metadata indicates that there is a need for metadata schemes to provide a more robust supporting mechanism and guidance for implementing administrative metadata elements in local contexts. 22

23 23 Conclusion/implication (4) Domain-specific controlled vocabularies such as genre and type terms for non-textual resources need to be further developed. Importance of application profiles that facilitate the meeting of local needs through adoption of metadata elements from various metadata schemes. Methods for facilitating the sharing of such local application profiles in turn would lead to increased metadata interoperability across digital repositories and collections. 23

24 24 Future studies Rapidly growing body of digital repositories and collections calls for further investigation of documentation practices (e.g., metadata best practices, metadata guidelines, application profiles). Novel approaches and techniques are needed for extracting, analyzing, and comparing those locally developed documentations. 24

25 25 Thank you! Address post-conference correspondence to Jung- ran Park (jung-ran.park@ischool.drexel.edu) Jung-ran Park Yuji Tosaka Caimei Lu


Download ppt "ISKO 2010 Conference, February 23-26, 2010 Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Locally Added Homegrown Metadata Semantics: Issues and Implications Jung-ran."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google