©2002 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Taming Metadata in the Wild West Liz Bishoff, Colorado Digitization Program Cheryl Walters, Utah State University Chuck Thomas, Florida State University Elizabeth S. Meagher, University of Denver

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Who what when whereWestern Trails Digital Standards Western Trails 2001 IMLS funded grant –Multi-state initiative to create a collection of digital objects on topic of Western Trails –23 participating institutions, creating 20,000 digital objects –Each institution would host their own digital object/each would create their own metadata/each would use their own metadata standards and their own database or local system –Each state would create a statewide database

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Who, what, when, where (cont ) Interoperability of the 4 state databases was through Z39.50, with a SiteSearch Web-Z interface Based on the CDP experience –Crosswalks from various databases –Reviewed the CDP Best Practices –Agreed to utilize Dublin Core as the common format Involved more than just the 4 states –Utah Academic Library Consortia, New Mexico, Arizona, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming –18 representatives from archives, museums, historical societies in these states met over a 9 month period to develop the document

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Why Western States Best Practices? Improve user results/satisfaction Improve consistency across different cultural heritage institutions Enhance potential for creating union catalogs from multiple databases/ILS Provide guidance for cultural heritage institutions on use of Dublin Core for digital resources Support interoperability Support emerging standards--OAI

©2002 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Taming Metadata in the Wild West Part 2: Writing the metadata guidelines

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Western Trail Metadata Task Forces -Descriptive Elements -Title- Contributor -Creator- Publisher -Subject- Language -Description- Source -Date.Original- Coverage -Relation -Technical Elements - Date.Digital- Format.Creation - Type- Identifier - Format.Use - Rights Management - Holding.Institution

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Getting It Done Set up two electronic discussion lists Used Colorado Digital Projects metadata guidelines as a base document Created initial working draft –base document –decisions made during WSDSGs first meeting –input from task force members Distributed draft to task force for revision (additions, deletions, rewrites, etc.) Changes discussed via & incorporated Result taken back to entire Western States Digital Standards Group for review

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Some concepts Define all terms used Avoid being library-centric Do not assume cataloging or metadata experience Provide lots of examples Provide links to related thesauri, standards, etc.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Problems, points of contention Figuring out exactly what data each Dublin Core element should contain Not as easy as it sounds! -Figuring out how to make guidelines flexible & comprehensive enough to fit a variety of situations, collaborative ventures & partners, for now and in the future.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project The Coverage element Official DC definition: The extent or scope of the content of the resource What does that mean exactly? How does it differ from the Subject Does not mean date/place of publication Our description of this element: Describes the spatial or temporal characteristics of the intellectual content of the resource –For art objects and artifacts, this could be the place where the object originated and the date or time period during which it was made. –Currently recommended only for maps, etc. or when place or time period cannot be adequately described by Subject element.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Source versus Relation element Looking at California State Librarys Metadata Standards helped –Source maps to MARC 534 Note about original version –Relation maps to MARC 787 Note about a related title The lights came on for catalogers who wanted to provide similar MARC tag equivalents; voted down as too library-centric. There are other standards beside MARC!

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Relation refinements explained Relation element has 12 possible refinements Meaning of each not always obvious Some of the differences not clear –Relation.IsFormatOf versus Relation.HasFormatOf. -We provided DCs explanation of the relationship between the resource and the object described in relation field. -Also gave concrete example of each

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Publisher element Not straightforward when object is digitized version of previously published item –Is it the digitizing institution? –Is it the publisher of the original version? Our guideline explains –The Publisher element contains information about the digital publisher. Publisher information from earlier stages in an objects publishing history may be listed in... Source and Contributor.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Date element What could possibly be confusing about Date? - Date originally issued, published, made, or created? - Date digitized? - Date of an associated event? -We created two new refinements to distinguish most important dates: -Date.Original Creation or modification dates for the original resource from which the digital object was derived or created. -Date.Digital Date of creation or availability of the digital resource.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Enter initial articles in titles? Sounds innocuous but... Affects sorting for display or reports Do you want the title The toupee worn by.... to sort by Toupee or The? -MARC controls via indicators; other formats dont have -If leave out, creates possible problem if migrating data into or out of a MARC format databases. -One person dryly commented: there will probably be some sort of trouble no matter what we decide. -Our guidelines recommend omitting initial articles.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Making guidelinesone size fits all Tried to encourage users to think about ramifications of their metadata decisions Reminded them to think about how data may be migrated and shared in future Listed lots of different thesauri & schemes to give users some choices Listed important info that metadata creators should include in record. –Example: the Format.Creation field

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Improving quality & detail of data Format.Creation field guidelines describe important technical data that users might want to include: –File size, quality (bit depth, resolution), extent (playtime, etc.), compression, checksum value, operating system, creation hardware & software, etc. Format.Creation also gives links to resources with more info about terms and standards.

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project A rose by any other name... One user communitys autograph album might be anothers libri amicorum How can we accommodate many potential controlled vocabularies Does the public need or want to know what vocabularies are used?

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Flexible subject guidelines –Allow and provide links to many different thesauri –Separate out different subject/genre schemes Example: Put all the Lib of Congress subject headings in one field; put all the genre terms from Thesaurus for Graphic Materials in another. –Identify thesauri used via scheme qualifier in field label, not mixed in with data in field itself which is searchable. Example: Label is Subject.MeSH so that mesh does not become a searchable term.

©2002 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Taming Metadata in the Wild West Part 3: Applications

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Metadata Application Depends On: Information available about the artifact Expertise of the researcher Complexity of records Expertise of the cataloger Data entry system and display

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project MARC to Dublin Core – DCBuilder

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Original Museum Record

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Museum Record after CDP Title Acer florissanti Creator Contributor Link [Access] [URI] Publisher 1. Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument 2. National Park Service Description Plant (Angiosperm, Dicotyledon) Family: Aceraceae Date Digital 2000 Subject(s) Aceraceae -- Colorado Angiosperms, Fossil -- Colorado Dicotyledons, Fossil – Colorado Florissant (Colo.) Type 1. image [DCMI Type Vocabulary] 2. text [DCMI Type Vocabulary] Source National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution USNM Languages eng [ISO 639-2] Relation MacGinitie, D.D., Fossil Plants of the Florissant Beds, Colorado, Carnegie Format Use 1. image/jpeg [IMT] [medium] 2.text/html [IMT] [medium] Rights National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution Project Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Metadata Record in ContentDM

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Metadata Record in ContentDM Continued

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Metadata Elements - Public Display

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Historical Society Metadata Record

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Direct Input Title Annual report of the Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society at Denver, Colo. Creator Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society (U.S.) Contributor Link Publisher University of Denver. Penrose Library Description The reports published as regular numbered issues of: The Sanatorium, v. The 11th and 12th reports (covering ) issued in combined form as: The Sanatorium ; v. 10, nos. 3/4 (July-Sept./Oct.-Dec. 1916) Reports cover the year ending Dec. 31. Chiefly in English, with some Hebrew. Date Original [Issued] [W3C-DTF] Date Digital [Created] Subject(s) Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society (U.S.) -- Periodicals. Tuberculosis -- Patients -- Colorado. Sanatoriums -- Colorado -- Denver. Type image [DCMI Type vocabulary] Source cm. Languages eng [ISO 639-2]; heb [ISO 639-2] Relation Beck Archives/Rocky Mountain Jewish History Society. Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society Collection. Special Collections Dept., Penrose Library, University of Denver, Denver, Colo. Format Create jpg; 300 dpi; 145 files; Epson Expression 836 XL Scanner; Adobe Photoshop version 5.5. Format Use image/jpg [Medium] [IMT] Rights

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Metadata Record in ContentDM

©2002 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Taming Metadata in the Wild West Part 4: Accommodation of levels of expertise

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Local Metadata Routes LEGACY METADATA constituents mappings & migrations NEW CONTENT latest metadata standard Local MetaBase Services

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Heritage Colorado Metadata Colorado Western Trails Metadata Z39.50 Connections Local MetaBase Conversion Scripts Z39.50 Access content w/out local database

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project COLORADO HERITAGE FSU DIGITAL WESTERN TRAILS SERVICES PROVIDER CONTENT PROVIDER CONTENT PROVIDER OAI-WT OAI-DC OAI-WTOAI-DCOAI-METS MOUNTAIN WEST DL CONTENT PROVIDER OAI Access

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Content Provider Challenges Implementing OAI - Intermediate Brokers May Be Necessary Choosing Brokers & Harvesters Maintaining Current OAI Provider Support Awareness of Current Metadata Standards Mapping Local Metadata to Supported Schema Maintaining Current Transformation Procedure - Examples Knowing Who Has Your Metadata

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Service Provider Challenges Maintaining Current OAI Harvester Support - Continuing support for older versions Awareness of Communities & Metadata Schema - What to collect? - Multiple views / repurposing - Added value of relationships between objects/collections - Link in a greater series of brokers? Maintaining Multiple Data About Same Objects? - Examples Active Role as Harvester/Service Provider - Contrast with more passive current OAI role

©2003 Colorado Digitization Program ©2002 Colorado Digitization Project Thank You! Liz Bishoff Colorado Digitization Program Cheryl Walters Utah State University Chuck Thomas Florida State University Libraries Elizabeth Betty Meagher University of Denver