Metadata for Special Collections How to Improve Interoperability in CONTENTdm ALCTS CCS Cataloging Norms Interest Group ALA 2009 Midwinter (January 24, 2009) Myung-Ja Han Christine Cho MJ: I changed 24th to 24

Background Why Do We Create Digital Collections? - To Increase Access to Hidden Resources Why Do We Share? - Increases exposure of collections - Broadens user base - “We can no longer assume that users will come through the front door, sharing metadata gets us ‘in the flow’” (Lorcan Dempsey). - from ‘Metadata for You & Me’

OAI-PMH and CONTENTdm OAI-PMH - Data Providers - Service Providers Data is Harvested by a Set Data is Harvested in Dublin Core

Methods 21 Collections from 15 Institutions - Find Unique Field Names - Where the Field Names Came from - How the Unique Fields were Mapped to Dublin Core - What was Mapped and What was Not

Types of Collections

MJ: in my view the label for the x-axis was cut off - it says “Number of Elem”

Unique Metadata Fields 21 Collections Used 472 Fields 159 fields use Unique Names other than Dublin Core 116 Descriptive Metadata 35 Administrative Metadata 8 Technical Metadata *40 elements were not mapped

Descriptive Metadata (1) - After Normalization DC Element No. contributor 1 format-extent 10 coverage-Spatial 11 identifier 6 coverage-temporal 4 isPartOf 8 creator publisher date source date-created 3 subject description type 5 format Not available in DC 22

Descriptive Metadata (2) Not Available in Dublin Core Objects, People/Place, Producer, ProperName, SeriesTitle, SourceSummary, Support, Technique, Style/Period, SubTheme, PerformanceTitle, ImageTitle, etc…

Administrative Metadata Physical Location/Local Identifier – Box Number, Shelf Number, Item Number, CD Number, Negative Number, Location Folder, Folder Number, Record Group, Place Kept, Location Collection, Inventory Number, Image File Name, Car Plan Number…

Technical Metadata Color Profile Digital Reproduction Information Digitization Note Digitization Specification File Resolution …

Lost Information Data Mapped Incorrectly - Of the 159 Local Elements, 37 were Mapped Incorrectly Unmapped Elements - CONTENTdm Provides the Option to Not Map Local Fields to Dublin Core MJ: I capitalized some of the words to match the other slides.

10 (out of 21) Collections Had Unmapped Fields Of the 40 Unmapped Elements, 9 Could Have Been Mapped to One of the Dublin Core Elements - Examples: Collection to <relation> Date Written to <date> MJ: capitalized some words…

Metadata for Special Collections Need Special Elements from Different Metadata Standards to Describe/Manage Resources - VRA Core - CDWA - ObjectID - EAD

What We Have Found (1) Describe Both Digital and Physical Resources within the Same Record

What We Have Found (2) Description is for EVERYTHING?! - Many Local Fields are Mapped to <dc:description> including, Theater Name, Repository, Original Format, Associated People, Inscription, English Translation, etc…

Descriptive, Administrative and Technical Metadata were Mapped to <description> - 27 unique local fields were mapped to <description> 11 descriptive 8 administrative 8 technical

How to Create Metadata (1) Think About Functional Requirements - What should be used for Searching - What should be used for Browsing - What should be used Internally Who are our users?

How to Create Metadata (2) Simplicity Extensibility Interoperability - from ‘Metadata (2008)’

How to Create Metadata (3) Include Recommendations for Classes of Data Elements (from ‘Shareable Metadata’) Titles Names Dates Subjects / Topics Language Geographic Places Identifiers Rights for Resources Bibliographic Citations Types of Resources

Suggestion for Exporting What to Export? - Data to Include - Data to Exclude Mapped to Qualified Dublin Core Elements, not Simple Dublin Core Are We Exporting as a Compound Object or Item Level? - Does the Collection consist of 9 books or 2987 Pages?

Suggestions for Field Names Are Qualified Dublin Core Elements not sufficient for our collection? If not, Can Qualifier be Added?

Suggestions for Metadata Creation Be CONSISTENT! Create Application Profile for Local Metadata Standard Describe One Resource Other Description can be Added as URI Or, Export One Set of Information, not Both

Share the Other Information! Create Collection Information Page that Include Collection Policy and Application Profile Include the information in Metadata (Collection Title with URL) from ‘Shareable Metadata’ and ‘Dublin Core Metadata Harvested through OAI PMH’’

Thanks! Questions and Comments Myung-Ja Han (mhan3@illinois.edu) Christine Cho (cncho816@yahoo.com)

Bibliography Digital Library Federation/National Science Digital Library (2005). Best Practices for OAI Data Provider Implementations and Shareable Metadata. http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/mediawiki/oaibp/?PublicTOC  Jackson, A. S., Han, M. J., Groetsch, K., Mustafoff, M., & Cole, T. W. (2008). Dublin Core Metadata Harvested through OAI-PMH. Journal of Library Metadata, 8 (1), (5-21). Park, Jung-ran & Sang Joon Park (2005). Digital collection management software employed by libraries and museums: Evaluation of metadata semantic mapping functionality. Presented at the poster session at ALISE (Association/Library and Information Science Education) annual conference, January 11-14, 2005 in Boston, Massachusetts. http://hdl.handle.net/1860/524 Shreeves, Sarah L. (2007). The Dynamics of Sharing: An Introduction to Shareable Metadata and Interoperability. Presentation for Panel on the Dynamics of Sharing: An Introduction to Shareable Metadata and Interoperability. Annual Conference of the Society for American Archivists. Chicago, Il. August 31, 2007. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/2263 Zeng, Marcia Lei & Jian Qin (2008). Metadata. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers.