Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

FEDLINK OCLC Users Group Meeting

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "FEDLINK OCLC Users Group Meeting"— Presentation transcript:

1 FEDLINK OCLC Users Group Meeting
                                                       Metadata Standards Eric Childress OCLC Comments, corrections, suggestions are welcome. Please contact the author via Washington, DC November 18, 2003 FEDLINK OCLC Users Group Meeting

2 Overview Fundamentals MetaMap Metadata formats: Types of metadata
Document mark-up languages & character encodings MetaMap Metadata formats: MARC, MODS DC, ONIX TEI, EAD, METS, MIX RDF, FGDC, COSATI

3 Fundamentals Descriptive Technical & Structural
5 types of metadata Descriptive Title, author, summary, topic, etc. Technical & Structural File size, software needed, file type(s), presentation instructions, etc. Administrative (a.k.a. “meta-metadata”) Record number, record date, record source, etc. Rights Copyright ownership, use privileges, etc. Management [Typically by/for owning agency]: price paid, circulation restrictions, etc.

4 Fundamentals Markup languages Markup languages:
Address the structure of a document Convey instructions to software that will process text to: Index the text for searching To render the text (e.g., for screen display or print) Transform the text (e.g., for a voice synthesizer) for some output device(s) The markup is generally invisible to end-users Extensible Markup Language (XML): XML is a metalanguage Agencies define their own XML to suit their task By creating Document Type Definitions (DTDs) or XML schema Data is separate from presentation instructions Presentation instructions go in a style sheet Offers just the right mix of flexibility and structure

5 Fundamentals Character encoding: Unicode: Character Encodings
Used for communicating text characters in a computing environment Hundreds of character encoding standards exist Character conversion is complex and expensive Unicode: A single, “comprehensive” global encoding standard Includes characters from scripts of all major modern, most minor, and selected ancient languages

6 MetaMap http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/meta/english/metamap.html
There are many, many standards. This presentation only discusses a select few…

7 MARC 21 MARC 21 (ISO 2709) Strengths:
ISO 2709-based metadata communications protocol Choice of two character encoding options: MARC 8 (ASCII, ANSEL, selected ISO, EACC) Unicode (limited to equivalents of MARC 8 repertoire) XML expression is now also an option Maintenance agency: Library of Congress w/ NLC, BL Strengths: Well-maintained, mature standard Widely adopted by library communities Large universe of MARC 21 records available Wide choice of software vendors Weaknesses (in the present & future): Virtually unused outside of libraries Limits on field and record size Restricted range of scripts supported Limited ability to convey complex relationships, hierarchy, attributes at tag/subfield level MARC 21 is well known to all of you, but it may be helpful to review some key points and new developments before looking at non-MARC standards More info:

8 MODS Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) Value of MODS:
Essentially MARC 21 recast in an XML-native framework Text-based tags rather than numeric ones, Selected clusters of related MARC 21 attributes condensed into single MODS element MARC 21 readily converts to MODS, but you can’t do a lossless reverse conversion of MODS to MARC 21 Maintenance agency: Library of Congress Value of MODS: A rich, library-oriented XML metadata schema Optimized for from-MARC conversion of legacy records Well-suited as a metadata format for OAI harvesting Applications of MODS: LC planning to convert 100K American Memory records Minerva project, U of Chicago Press, California Digital Library, others using or planning to use for records for web sites, e-texts. OpenOffice Bibliographic Project MODS is essentially an XML rendering of MARC’s content, but unlike MARC XML, the tagging is text rather than numeric. OpenOffice Bibliographic Project: Open Office Bibliographic Project: MODS also simplifies some aspects of MARC

9 MARC 21 & MODS Feature MARC 21 MARC 21 Unicode MARC XML MARC Slim MODS
Structure ISO 2709 XML Encoding MARC 8 Unicode Repertoire of scripts JACKPHY Conversion from MARC 21 lossless minimal loss Conversion to MARC 21 lossless? minor loss ·        Bibliographic OCLC OCLC R OCLC DCPS ·        Authority x ·        Classification ·        Community ·        Holdings MARC XML could potentially be used as follows: for representing a complete MARC record in XML as an extension schema to METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) to represent metadata for OAI harvesting for original resource description in XML syntax for metadata in XML that may be packaged with an electronic resource Some MARC XML advantages are: The schema supports all MARC encoded data regardless of format The MARC XML framework is a component-oriented, extensible architecture allowing users to plug and play different software pieces to build custom solutions Limitations of MARC XML: Validation with the MARC XML schema is accomplished via a software tool. This software, external to the schema, will provide three possible levels of validation: (1) Basic XML validation according to the MARC XML Schema; (2) Validation of MARC21 tagging (field and subfield); (3) Validation of MARC record content, e.g., coded values, dates, and times. “MARC slim” (xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim”) – a simple validation approach Added note: UNIMARC and XML: Ministère de la culture et de la communication (France), Board of Research and Technology is developing BiblioML DTD for converting UNIMARC to XML Conversion tools

10 Dublin Core DCMES also issued as NISO Z39.85
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set ISO 15836:2003(E) The Dublin Core metadata element set A standard for cross-domain resource description Designed primarily to support discovery and retrieval Defines semantics but not syntax (i.e. container) Choice of simple or qualified DC Maintenance agency: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) hosted by OCLC Research Value of Dublin Core: Simplicity, extensibility, interoperability Worldwide adoption (DCMES translated into 20+ languages) Usable as crosswalk between major metadata standards Applications of Dublin Core: Open Archives Initiative (OAI) mandates DC metadata Wide variety of extended versions in use: In digital library, archives, museums projects By e-government programs (AU, CA, DK, FI, IE, NZ, UK) OCLC usage: Connexion, DCPS, ContentDM, Research DCMES also issued as NISO Z39.85

11 ONIX ONIX International (Online Information Exchange): Standard data exchange format for publishers & jobbers Based on EPICS (EDItEUR Product Information Communication Standards) For representing and communicating book industry product information in electronic form Offers two levels of richness (level 1 & level 2) XML schema with Unicode encoding Maintenance agency: EDItEUR working with input from the Book Industry Communication (BIC) and the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) Value of ONIX: Meets needs of publishers, jobbers, retail sellers for: Easier access to richer book data (including bibliographic data, cover art, blurbs, TOCs, UPC data, and much more) An inexpensive-to-implement common data exchange format Applications of ONIX: Primarily oriented towards publishers, jobbers, retailers Most major players (Amazon, Baker & Taylor, etc.) now using/supporting ONIX Some interest by libraries & ILS vendors in ONIX ONIX is a new standard built by the publishing community. It’s designed to convey a variety of descriptive metadata, but also business-related metadata and important auxiliary objects like image files of book cover art The goal of ONIX is to standardize the transmitting of product information so that wholesalers, retailers and others in the supply chain will all be able to accept information that is transferred electronically in ONIX International format

12 TEI Text Encoding Initiative (TEI): For complex markup of literary texts Both SGML & XML DTDs available TEI “header” (TEIH) can be used as a metadata record Maintenance agency: TEI Consortium: TEI Consortium has executive offices in Bergen, Norway, and is hosted at four university sites worldwide: the Univ. of Bergen, Brown Univ., Oxford Univ., and the Univ. of Virginia Maintains “P4” Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange Value of TEI: Designed to meet the needs of scholarly research community (esp. in the humanities) for a variety of activities including: Adding in-line academic commentary in e-texts As an aid to research by supporting special indexing points, etc. Applications of TEI: Widely used by major humanities electronic text collections such as CETH, UVa e-text center, many others. TEI is an e-text markup schema tailor-made for humanities scholars.

13 EAD Encoded Archival Description (EAD) A format for expressing electronic archival finding aids EAD DTD (Version 2002) is designed to function as both an SGML and XML DTD Maintained jointly by the Library of Congress and the Society of American Archivists (SAA) Value of EAD: Effectively an organized presentation of a collection of documents (typically in an archive or manuscript collection) EAD header carries metadata for the finding aid Provides for simple or complex mark-up to support varying levels of indexing Well-suited for interweaving narrative with links to specific objects in a collection (either directly to the object or via a record for the object that may link to the object). Applications of EAD: Conversion of existing paper finding aids to electronic form Widely used by academic institutions and archives in North America RLG Archival Resources database host copies of many EADs                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   EAD is a standard jointly owned by LC and SAA that provides a format for expressing collection-level variety information in the form of electronic finding aids.

14 METS Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) Value of METS:
A standard “shell” for encoding data essential for retrieving, preserving, and serving up digital resources Six modules define descriptive, administrative, structural, rights and other metadata Some parts of a METS object may be external (e.g., a MODS record for the descriptive metadata) Maintenance agency: Library of Congress Value of METS: Need for METS identified at DLF metadata experts meetings Varied local approaches to non-descriptive metadata not scaling well & offering little interoperability between agencies Offers a standard mode for object “packaging” for preservation, institutional repositories, other activities Applications of METS: LC: planning to use with selected moving images, audio recordings, folk life mixed media collections OCLC DCPS, RLG, Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, National Library of Wales exploring or using for variety of projects METS is a new standard designed to capture and convey non-descriptive metadata as well as descriptive metadata. It has been has been developed in response to LC’s own burgeoning digital collection needs with the aid of insight from Digital Library Federation through information the DLF has gathered from its members Useful presentation (2003):

15 MIX Metadata for Images in XML (MIX) Value of MIX:
XML schema for a set of technical data elements required to manage digital image collections Format for interchange and/or storage of the data specified in the NISO Draft Standard Data Dictionary: Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images (version 1.2) Still in early development and testing phases Collaboration of: Library of Congress and NISO Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images Standards Committee Value of MIX: Provides a common XML schema for expressing technical data particular to still and moving digital images Can be used with other schema such as METS and MODS as part of a comprehensive approach to managing and preserving digital images Applications of MIX: OCLC DCPS, LC, others planning or testing MIX still in nascent stage of development and testing MIX is a very new metadata standard and has been developed by LC with the help of NISO, and is based in large part on NISO’s work on developing technical metadata standards for images.

16 Summary DC ONIX TEI EAD METS MIX Structure XML Encoding Unicode
XML Encoding Unicode Repertoire of scripts Conversion from MARC 21 Lossiness varies Minimal loss Header only - lossy Header only - lossy Conversion to MARC 21 Some ONIX-only data may be lost Header only – lossless Header only – lossless Chief purpose Simple description for discovery & retrieval Publisher product info exchange Markup of scholarly Etexts Markup of electronic finding aids Shell with technical data Technical data for digital images Primary user base e-Govt, Libraries, Museums, Archives, Publishers, Jobbers Humanities scholars Archives, Libraries Maintenance agency DCMI Editeur TEI Consortium LC w/ SAA LC

17 RDF Resource Description Format (RDF) Value of RDF:
Graphing theory (i.e. arcs and nodes)-influenced, XML syntax-based metalanguage for expressing metadata about web resources Designed to convey metadata for machine consumption (raw RDF is not very human-readable) Fundamental building block of RDF is the triple (subject + predicate + object) Maintained by the W3C; RDF specification under revision Value of RDF: A subject of debate (typically RDF vs. XML)! Pro: Model-based expression of metadata critical to the Semantic Web (i.e. derived connections); more flexible, scalable and forgiving standard than XML Con: RDF carries unneeded processing overhead vs. XML; RDF specification has too many flaws; few use RDF Applications of RDF: Open Directory Project, selected software (e.g., Siderean) OCLC Connexion exports Dublin Core in RDF/XML Specification and useful resources: Open Directory:

18 CSDGM (a.k.a. FGDC) Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) [better known as “FGDC”] CSDGM Version 2 - FGDC-STD Defines a common set of terminology and definitions for the documentation of digital geospatial data Maintained by Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) [an interagency committee] Crosswalk of FGDC to ISO 19115:2003(E) Geographic information - Metadata available; ANSI technical amendment for ISO-FDGC harmonization in progress Value of FGDC: Provides common standard for publishing metadata about geospatial resources Widely used by government and business Many systems and applications support the standard Applications of FGDC: Adopted or usable by major geospatial agencies in West. Usefulness extended with profiles (e.g. Biological Data)

19 COSATI Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI)
Cataloging rules and record format for the descriptive cataloging of technical reports and similar documents Field tags are alpha strings (not numerical like MARC) Related COSATI subject category list can be used Owned by CENDI (the Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group) [successor to COSATI] Value of COSATI: Supports straightforward capture of useful metadata for scientific and technical information Applications of COSATI: Used by a number of science/technical and defense U.S. federal agencies Small number of library systems (e.g., SIRSI) support COSATI record import/export COSATI can be converted to MARC if desired COSATI subject category list based on US Engineers Joint Council Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms & itself now the basis for the SIGLE Subject Category List

20 Questions

21 Links Dublin Core: http://www.dublincore.org
EAD: FGDC: MARC 21: MARCXML: METS: MIX: MODS: ONIX: RDF: TEI: OCLC Research:


Download ppt "FEDLINK OCLC Users Group Meeting"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google