|
1
|
- Jenn Riley
- Metadata Librarian
- Indiana University
|
|
2
|
- Benefits to users
- One-stop searching
- Aggregation of subject-specific resources
- Benefits to institutions
- Increased exposure for collections
- Broader user base
- Bringing together of distributed collections
|
|
3
|
- “Low barrier” protocol
- Shares metadata only, not content, simplifying rights issues
- Same effort on your part to share with one or a hundred service
providers (basically)
- Wide adoption in the cultural heritage sector
- Quickly eclipsed older methods such as Z39.50
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
- Create metadata, thinking about shareability
- Determine format(s) you wish to share your metadata in
- Transform records into versions appropriate for sharing via OAI
- Validate transformed metadata
- Load transformed metadata into OAI data provider
- Test with OAI Repository Explorer
- Communicate with service providers
- See what your metadata looks like once a service provider harvests it
|
|
6
|
- Jenn Riley
- Metadata Librarian
- Indiana University
|
|
7
|
- Promotes search interoperability - “the ability to perform a search over
diverse sets of metadata records and obtain meaningful results”
(Priscilla Caplan)
- Is human understandable outside of its local context
- Is useful outside of its local context
- Preferably is machine processable
|
|
8
|
- Metadata providers know the materials
- Document encoding schemes and controlled vocabularies
- Document practices
- Ensure record validity
- Aggregators have the processing power
- Format conversion
- Reconcile known vocabularies
- Normalize data
- Batch metadata enhancement
|
|
9
|
- There is no monolithic, one-size-fits-all metadata record
- Metadata for the same thing is different depending on use and audience
- Affected by format, content, and context
- Harry Potter as represented by…
- a public library
- an online bookstore
- a fan site
|
|
10
|
- Names
- LCNAF: Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1475-1564
- ULAN: Buonarroti, Michelangelo
- Places
- LCSH: Jakarta (Indonesia)
- TGN: Jakarta
- Subjects
- LCSH: Neo-impressionism (Art)
- AAT: Pointillism
|
|
11
|
- Many factors affect choice of metadata formats
- MARC, MODS, Dublin Core, EAD, and TEI may all be appropriate for a
single item
- High-quality metadata in a format not common in your community of
practice is not shareable
|
|
12
|
- Content
- Consistency
- Coherence
- Context
- Communication
- Conformance
- Metadata standards
Vocabulary and encoding standards
- Descriptive content standards
Technical standards
|
|
13
|
- Choose appropriate vocabularies
- Choose appropriate granularity
- Make it obvious what to display
- Make it obvious what to index
- Exclude unnecessary “filler”
- Make it clear what links point to
|
|
14
|
- Records in a set should all reflect the same practice
- Fields used
- Vocabularies
- Syntax encoding schemes
- Allows aggregators to apply same enhancement logic to an entire group of
records
|
|
15
|
- Record should be self-explanatory
- Values must appear in appropriate elements
- Repeat fields instead of “packing” to explicitly indicate where one
value ends and another begins
|
|
16
|
- Include information not used locally
- Exclude information only used locally
- Current safe assumptions
- Users discover material through shared record
- User then delivered to your environment for full context
- Context driven by intended use
|
|
17
|
- Method for creating shared records
- Vocabularies and content standards used in shared records
- Record updating practices and schedules
- Accrual practices and schedules
- Existence of analytical or supplementary materials
- Provenance of materials
|
|
18
|
- Metadata standards (and not just DC)
- Vocabulary and encoding standards
- Descriptive content standards (AACR2, CCO, DACS)
- Technical standards (XML, Character encoding, etc)
|
|
19
|
- Check your metadata
- Appropriate view?
- Consistent?
- Context provided?
- Does the aggregator have what they need?
- Documented?
- Can a stranger tell you what the record describes?
|
|
20
|
- Creating shareable metadata requires thinking outside of your local box
- Creating shareable metadata will require more work on your part
- Creating shareable metadata will require our vendors to support (more)
standards
- Creating shareable metadata is no longer an option, it’s a requirement
|
|
21
|
- Jenn Riley
- Metadata Librarian
- Indiana University
|
|
22
|
- Format
- Genre
- Specialized vs. general audience
- Primary vs. secondary
- Use
|
|
23
|
- Purpose
- Multi-level vs. item-level description
- Method of expression
- Reputation of developer
- Stability
- Update frequency
|
|
24
|
- Library, archival, or museum tradition
- Standards used in your community
- Resources and expertise available
- Formats already being used
- Systems and workflows already in place
|
|
25
|
- Robustness of description desired
- Describing multiple versions
- Relationships between records
- Other management needs
|