1. Non-MARC Metadata for Technical Services Librarians? Beth M. Russell The Ohio State University Russell.363@osu.edu

2. Goals Briefly cover “metadata basics” Highlight some projects with Ohio connections as examples Discuss implications for technical services librarians Then discuss some more!

3. Introductions Who are we? What kinds of positions are in our libraries? What do we need to know?

4. What I’m Going to Say We already know metadata Examples for discussion What do we need to know in our current jobs? How can we apply our skills? Questions, discussions, controversy. PLEASE!

5. Metadata was the Future … It seemed liked catalogers were going to morph into metadata librarians. In reality, we have maintained distinct roles and traditions.

6. Metadata is the Present … We have to work with “metadata” colleagues. We have to know enough to plan projects, answer questions, guide policy. We have to shake a reputation for rigidity and narrowness. See Christine DeZelar-Tiedman, “Crashing the Party: Catalogers as Digital Librarians.” OCLC Systems & Services 20/4, 2004.

7. What Do We Mean by non-MARC? MARC *is* METADATA So are other things, like EAD, VRA, Dublin Core, etc., which we’ll talk about more later List is changing all the time and cannot be complete, but some types are more common in libraries than others.

8. Why Not Use MARC? MARC is robust, works for many formats, and integrates into library catalog *but* It lacks descriptive elements for many types of resources; it’s not intuitive; and can be inflexible  351 Organization & arrangement field  555 Cumulative index/finding aid note

9. Content Guidelines vs. Schemes Content guidelines govern what goes into records Schemes guide how that content is structured AACR vs. MARC, for example, but consider also LCSH and LCAF

10. Remember … Even simple things like an address book can be seen as having a “metadata scheme” and perhaps their own content guidelines as well Garbage in, garbage out regardless of the scheme Metadata is only *part* of the delivery of digital objects (or physical objects, for that matter)

11. XML (Extensible Markup Language) MARC can be expressed/migrated to XML, but usually isn’t Most other non-MARC schemes are (or can be) expressed in XML Or in spreadsheets Or on paper … XML allows easier transfer and migration

12. Categories or Types of Metadata These are not mutually exclusive Again, MARC is a good example, but not a perfect correlation Scheme does not equal type of metadata

13. Descriptive Metadata Descriptive metadata describes the content of a resource Closely aligned to most of what we do in MARC cataloging  Title  Author  Date of creation

14. Administrative Metadata Information that allows staff to locate and manage a resource Also might mirror some other data we’re used to recording  Provenance (541 Immediate source of acquisition)  Copyright status (506 Restrictions on access)

15. Structural Metadata Describes the organization or relationships among multiple objects that create a resource Often broken out into separate document TEI, for example

16. Preservation Metadata Information that facilitates long term identification, storage, and use of resources Might be in separate document PREMIS, for example, documents preservation events for a resource

17. Technical Metadata Describes the technical details of an object Type of object governs what is recorded (image resolution vs. video running time) May overlap with administrative metadata  File size  Color space

20. Questions and Discussion?

21. Common Types of non-MARC Metadata with Ohio Library Examples Dublin Core (DC) Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Visual Resources Association Core (VRA) Do these ring a bell?

22. Dublin Core Developed from 1994 conference “discussion on semantics and the Web revolv[ing] around the difficulty of finding resources” International effort, constantly growing Initiative Website

23. Dublin Core is Everywhere! OhioLINK - Digital Media Center The Knowledge Bank at OSU: Home Ohio Memory Online Scrapbook

26. TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) Developed around 1987, before XML “Aims to encode all the semantically significant aspects of literary texts” National Underground Railroad Freedom Center E-Books National Underground Railroad Freedom Center E-Books

28. Results of DLXS search

29. Full-text results

30. EAD (Encoded Archival Description) Began in mid 1990s, pre-XML Similar to TEI in that digital “version” is marked up for content, not just display Enables sophisticated searching of archival finding aids – more refined than an HTML “find” search and can search across collections Online Archive of California Ohio State University Finding Aids Collection

31. EAD

34. VRA (Visual Resources Categories) VRA Core Categories “consist of a single element set that can be applied as many times as necessary to create records to describe works of visual culture as well as the images that document them” Recommend controlled vocabularies be used McKenney & Hall Collection

38. Other schemes METS incorporates administrative, descriptive, and structural metadata into one transmission standard. Used to ingest records, “turn” pages, etc. Manipulating complex records. Can use MODS for descriptive portion, for example. MODS “half way between MARC and DC.” Used to map for cross-collection searching.

39. MODS Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) “Schema for a bibliographic element set that may be used for a variety of purposes, and particularly for library applications. As an XML schema, the "Metadata Object Description Schema" (MODS) is intended to be able to carry selected data from existing MARC 21 records as well as to enable the creation of original resource description records. It includes a subset of MARC fields and uses language-based tags rather than numeric ones, in some cases regrouping elements from the MARC 21 bibliographic format.”

42. So How Does this Affect Technical Services? New duties? Can we “repurpose” non-MARC and MARC data with minimal effort? Will non-MARC move into our catalogs? Is our expertise transferrable? What will the future hold?

43. Examples from MY Life Grant-funded project at Texas A&M– I made it up as I went along OhioLINK DMC metadata application profile (which is actually a scheme) DISC metadata guidance Mapping to save cataloger time vs. duplication of effort

44. Examples from YOUR Lives??

45. Thanks for Your Attention! Russell.363@osu.edu