Post on 21-Dec-2015
transcript
Non-MARC Metadata for Technical Services Librarians?
Beth M. Russell
The Ohio State University
Russell.363@osu.edu
Goals
Briefly cover “metadata basics” Highlight some projects with Ohio
connections as examples Discuss implications for technical services
librarians Then discuss some more!
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!
Metadata was the Future …
It seemed liked catalogers were going to morph into metadata librarians.
In reality, we have maintained distinct roles and traditions.
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.
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.
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 inflexible351 Organization & arrangement field555 Cumulative index/finding aid note
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
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)
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
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
Descriptive Metadata
Descriptive metadata describes the content of a resource
Closely aligned to most of what we do in MARC catalogingTitleAuthorDate of creation
Administrative Metadata
Information that allows staff to locate and manage a resource
Also might mirror some other data we’re used to recordingProvenance (541 Immediate source of
acquisition)Copyright status (506 Restrictions on access)
Structural Metadata
Describes the organization or relationships among multiple objects that create a resource
Often broken out into separate document TEI, for example
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
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 sizeColor space
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?
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
Dublin Core is Everywhere!
OhioLINK - Digital Media Center The Knowledge Bank at OSU: Home Ohio Memory Online Scrapbook
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
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
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
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.
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.”
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?
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