Summary of the Survey on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for Korean E-Resources Miree Ku, Duke University March 25,

Summary of the Survey (1) 6 major Korean vendors participated mainly Vendor/Provider/Aggregator Most of them provide – full-text databases, e-books and streaming media – Korean resources – metadata regarding title lists for non-index and non- reference packages/databases – author/issuing organization, dates of publication, series title, publishers, edition information, table of contents, page and volume information besides current titles and URL – Metadata by upon request 2

Summary of the Survey (2) Most of them provide – link resolution services with title lists with or without fee / upon request – updated title lists to link resolution services Any of them was not aware of established standards and best practices on e-resources – Most of them wish to get information 3

Summary of the Survey (3) Some of them follow – Other classification – Open URL – ISSN, ISBN, ISRC – DOI, DDC Some of them are interested in – Open URL – Other subject headings – DOI, DDC, MARC21, AACR2 4

Business Type Number Publisher1 Vendor/Provider/Aggregator6 Platform provider1 Identifier registry provider (e.g., DOI registration agency) 1 Others1 5

Length in the Electronic Resources Industry 0-5 years: 2 (33%) 6-10 years: 0 (0%) years: 2 (33%) over 16 years: 2 (33%) 6

Types of e-resources primarily provided TypeNumber Other full-text databases (journal articles, proceedings, dissertations, etc.) 6 E-books3 Streaming media2 References/Indexes Databases1 E-journals1 Online news sources0 Maps/GIS0 Other0 7

Languages of the e-resources primarily provided LanguageNumber Korean5 English1 Chinese1 Japanese1 1 vendor provide Korean and English e-resources 1 vendor provide Chinese and Japanese e-resources 8

Metadata service for non-index (non-bibliographic) and non-reference packages/databases of e-books, e- journals, streaming media, maps, (1) Metadata ServiceNumberPercentage Title lists of current resources only, excluding the withdrawn titles 350% Comprehensive title lists labeled with material status, such as withdrawn, ceased, etc 235 Comprehensive title lists plus separate title lists/sheets for new titles and withdrawn titles 117% 9

Metadata service for non-index (non-bibliographic) and non-reference packages/databases of e-books, e- journals, streaming media, maps, (2) The followings were not provided by survey participants. – Free brief MARC records – Fee-based brief MARC records – Free full-level MARC records – Fee-based full-level MARC records – Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service – URL checking service – An automatic mechanism that facilitates easy online error report and instant fix on access and metadata problems 10

What metadata do you provide besides current title and URL? (1) MetadataNumbers Author/Issuing organization6 Date(s) of publication6 Series title 5 Publisher(s)4 Edition information4 Table of contents3 Page and volume information3 Other identifier information2 ISBN/ISSN/ISRC, Other standard number2 Pinyin Wade-Giles, Modern-Hepburn, Korean McCune-Reischauer Romanization, 2 Date added to the package/database2 11

What metadata do you provide besides current title and URL? (2) MetadataNumbers Summary1 Holdings and restrictions information (year coverage, moving wall, etc.) 1 Other titles, including earlier title(s) and later titles(s)1 Place(s) of publication1 Persistent links other than native URL (DOI, etc.)0 System requirements0 Other0 12

How often do you supply metadata (title list, MARC records, etc.)? FrequencyNumber Upon request 4 Monthly 2 Every six months 2 Other 1 Every year 0 Every three months 0 Weekly 0 13

What tracking metadata do you provide in response to changes in titles, publication patterns, and relationships between parties? MetadataNumbers Earlier title information recorded under the entry of its current title 2 Withdrawn/discontinued/ceased titles1 Separate entries/records of earlier title(s)1 Newly added titles 1 Current titles for the provided resources only without any title info listed above 1 Other1 Other related titles information such as part titles, common titles, etc. 0 Brief title history0 Later title(s)0 14

How do you distribute the metadata? DistributionNumber upon request5 Posted online regularly with notification1 Posted online regularly without notification1 Posted online irregularly without notification0 Posted online irregularly with notification0 FTP pickup0 Other0 automatically0 15

What relationship do you have with link resolution services? Relationship with link resolution servicesNumber Proactively provide them with title lists with or without fee 3 Never interacted, in consideration of doing so2 Metadata available upon request1 Proactively provide them with MARC records with or without fee 0 Never interacted, have no plan doing so0 Metadata freely downloaded from website0 Other0 16

How often do you regularly provide updated title lists to link resolution services? FrequencyNumber Monthly 3 Upon request 1 Other 1 Every three months 0 Every six months 0 Every year 0 Weekly 0 17

Are you aware that there are established national and international standards and best practices for describing electronic resources ? AwarenessNumberPercentage No, but wish to get information on this 4 67% No2 33% Yes0 0% 18

What standards and best practices do you currently follow when supplying metadata? (1) Standards and Best PracticesNumber Other classification3 OpenURL ( ISSN (International Standard Serial Number), ISBN (International Standard Book Number), ISRC (International Standard Recording Code), or other publication identifiers 2 Digital Object Identifier (DOI, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)1 Other1 PCC guidelines of standards, e.g., BSR, CSR, Provider –Neutral (P-N) ( 0 MARC 21 ( AACR2 ( RDA ( Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH,

What standards and best practices do you currently follow when supplying metadata? (2) Standards and Best PracticesNumber Library of Congress Classification (LCC, 0 Knowledge Bases And Related Tools (KBART, ONline Information eXchange (ONIX, a metadata standard for publishers, 0 ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL, Other subject headings, such as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Sears List of Subject Headings, etc. 0 Name authority headings (e.g., Virtual international authority file (VIAF, Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF, etc.) 0 Creator/contributor identifiers (e.g., International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI, Open Researcher Contributor Identification Initiative (ORCID, and other identifier standard(s) 0 Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J, 20

What standards and best practices would you be interested in following? (1) Standards and Best PracticesNumber OpenURL2 Other subject headings2 DOI1 MARC 211 AACR21 Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)1 ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers1 KBART0 PIE-J0 PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource0 21

What standards and best practices would you be interested in following?(2) Standards and Best PracticesNumber RDA0 LCSH0 LC Classification0 Other classification0 ONIX0 ONIX-PL0 Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)0 Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.)0 Other0 22

Why does your company choose not to comply with some or all of the standards and best practices? ReasonsNumber We will consider complying with the standards for the future resources/databases, but not for the existing ones as it is too time consuming and costly to change what we have designed 2 Unawareness of the standards1 Complying with the standards increases the product cost in human resource facilities of hardware and software, etc. 1 Such metadata do not necessarily eliminate problems0 Such metadata do not accommodate the needs of CJK resources/scripts0 Lack metadata expertise to provide certain metadata0 Standards are too complicated to understand0 Other0 23

Suggestion from survey participants Difficulties on providing titles in English or Romanization – Titles should be transliterated (romanized) or translated into English prior to process any standards and/or best practices Difficulties on providing MARC format to libraries – Willing to provide standard MARC records of Web DB products or e-books to libraries, but…. – Provide customized MARC records since each library requests different MARC field according to their library system or needs 24

Epilogue: vendors’ stance E-resource vendors create and distribute XML files to Link Resolution Services (ex. Ex libris, Proquest, Ebsco, OCLC) – Field names of XML file are not standardized – Vendors use sample format provided by Link Resolution Services to create XML file – Limited few Metadata items included Vendor’s improvement efforts (currently underway) – Change XML format in order to avoid a dominate-subordinate relationship between them and provide the same format to each Link Resolution Services – Include metadata items as many as possible – Link Resolution Services do not accept these new format yet due to their technical system Vendor’s future plans – Provide standardized metadata such as Dublin Core etc – Issues Which kind of metadata standards should be considered for the best practices How can we cover additional expenses for system change and lack of manpower 25

Consideration Mutual Understanding Communication Cooperation 26