A Comparative Analysis Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D., USA Presented at IFLA satellite postconference “Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the Digital Environment and Semantic Web” August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) 2 O.Zavalina'2012

 Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) Used in digital libraries to organize information 3 O.Zavalina'2012

 Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) Used in digital libraries to organize information Functions supported:  Find  Identify  Select  Obtain ( IFLA, 1998; 2008 ) 4 O.Zavalina'2012

5 draws data values from the natural language: Estonian capital Tallinn is located in Northern Europe IFLA’s Classification and Indexing Section Free-text metadata O.Zavalina'2012

6 draws data values from the natural language: Estonian capital Tallinn is located in Northern Europe IFLA’s Classification and Indexing Section draws data values from formally- maintained list of terms Free-text metadata Controlled-vocabulary metadata draws data values from formally- maintained list of terms O.Zavalina'2012

 “Metadata providing a high-level description of an aggregation of individual items” (Macgregor, 2003)  Describes collection as a whole  Has long been used in archival community  Is now used in digital libraries Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 7 O.Zavalina'2012

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 8 O.Zavalina'2012 Example of collection-level metadata record from The European Library

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 9 O.Zavalina'2012 Example of collection-level metadata record from The European Library Free-text Controlled- vocabulary

 “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) 10 O.Zavalina'2012

 “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries 11 O.Zavalina'2012

 “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements: 12 O.Zavalina'2012

 “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements:  free-text Description 13 O.Zavalina'2012

 “information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements:  free-text Description  controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object], Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage 14 O.Zavalina'2012

Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections O.Zavalina'

Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them O.Zavalina'

Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to: O.Zavalina'

Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:  give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000) O.Zavalina'

Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:  give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000)  help narrow search scope to increase precision and ease of use O.Zavalina'

Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:  give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000)  help narrow search scope to increase precision and ease of use  assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003; 2005) O.Zavalina'

 Most digital libraries only create free-text collection-level metadata default in content management systems (e.g., DSpace) saves time of metadata creator 21 O.Zavalina'2012 Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection from American Memory and Opening History

 Most digital libraries only create free-text collection-level metadata default in content management systems (e.g., DSpace) saves time of metadata creator  Even when available, controlled- vocabulary collection-level metadata is often NOT displayed to the end user 22 O.Zavalina'2012 Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection from American Memory and Opening History

 Fitness for the purpose of supporting user tasks: find identify select obtain 23 O.Zavalina'2012

 Fitness for the purpose of supporting user tasks: find identify select obtain  Quality criteria Accuracy Consistency Completeness … 24 O.Zavalina'2012

 Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008) 25 O.Zavalina'2012

 Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)  Research evaluating collection-level metadata is in its infancy 26 O.Zavalina'2012

 Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)  Research evaluating collection-level metadata is in its infancy Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)  Single digital library Zavalina (2011)  compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3 large-scale digital libraries 27 O.Zavalina'2012

 Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata 28 O.Zavalina'2012

 Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields 29 O.Zavalina'2012

 Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields  One-way complementarity  Two-way complementarity  Redundancy 30 O.Zavalina'2012

 Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields  One-way complementarity  Two-way complementarity  Redundancy across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA 31 O.Zavalina'2012

32 O.Zavalina'2012

33 O.Zavalina'2012

34 O.Zavalina'2012

 ↑↑↑ In 22% of records free-text Description complemented 2+ controlled- vocabulary subject metadata fields.  ↔ Two-way complementarity occurred in 40% of records mostly between Description and Subject 35 O.Zavalina'2012

36  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) O.Zavalina'2012

37  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”) O.Zavalina'2012

38  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”)  Description specifies dates in Temporal Coverage “1930 through 2011”. O.Zavalina'2012

39  Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”)  Description specifies dates in Temporal Coverage “1930 through 2011”.  Description complements Object Type: genre information (“children’s lore,” “occupational lore,” “performances,” “interviews,” “surveys”). O.Zavalina'2012

 Subject lists additional topics not covered by Description (e.g., “Architecture”). 40 O.Zavalina'2012

41  Subject lists additional topics not covered by Description (e.g., “Architecture”).  Geographic Coverage provides spatial information absent in Description United States (nation) Southern U.S. (general region) Florida (state). O.Zavalina'2012

 “towns of Coal City, Braidwood, and Wilmington” in Description  “dance instruction manuals, anti-dance manuals, histories, treatises on etiquette” in Description  “Illinois (state), Grundy (county)” in Geographic Coverage  “Ballroom dancing—United States” in Subjects ↔↔↔↔ 42 O.Zavalina'2012

 “newspaper photographs” in Description  “contemporary, … European age of chivalry, … prior to 1900” in Description  “photographs; archival finding aids” in Object Type  “ ” in Temporal Coverage ↔↔↔↔ 43 O.Zavalina'2012

 Only in European Library (19%)  Examples: DescriptionGeo. Coverage Estonia Ljubljana Netherlands DescriptionTemp. Coverage 1763 DescriptionSubject photographs 44 O.Zavalina'2012

 High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata 45 O.Zavalina'2012

 High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata  More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata  mutually complementary 46 O.Zavalina'2012

 High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata  More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata  mutually complementary allow more fully representing intellectual content of information objects 47 O.Zavalina'2012

 High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata  More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata  mutually complementary allow more fully representing intellectual content of information objects ultimately improve subject access for the users. 48 O.Zavalina'2012

Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available 49 O.Zavalina'2012

Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in  National standards  Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO) 50 O.Zavalina'2012

Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in  National standards  Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO)  International standards  Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA). 51 O.Zavalina'2012

Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in  National standards  Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO)  International standards  Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA). Require more extensive analysis of collection-level subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries  with different subject focus & scale  built in various countries 52 O.Zavalina'2012

Aitäh 53 O.Zavalina'2012

 Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, pp New York: Marcel Dekker.  Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 46(1),  Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization. Library & Information Science Research, 25(4),  Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly, 75(1),  Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library Review, 52(6),  Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)  Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B. McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.  Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4),  Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, (pp ). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 54 O.Zavalina'2012

 The European Library Sally Chambers  American Memory Christa Maher  Opening History IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content project team 55 O.Zavalina'2012