Is Dublin Core Dying? Kayla Willey – Brigham Young University Cheryl Walters – Utah State University Utah Library Association Annual Conference St. George, Utah May 17, 2006

What is Dublin Core? Title Title Creator Creator Subject Subject Description Description Publisher Publisher Contributor Contributor Date Date Type Type Format Format Identifier Identifier Source Source Language Language Relation Relation Coverage Coverage Rights Rights Dublin Core Dublin Core Title (mandatory) Title (mandatory) Creator (mandatory if available) Creator (mandatory if available) Subject (mandatory) Subject (mandatory) Description (mandatory) Description (mandatory) Date Digital (mandatory) Date Digital (mandatory) Date Original (mandatory if applicable) Date Original (mandatory if applicable) Format (mandatory) Format (mandatory) Digitization Specifications (mandatory) Digitization Specifications (mandatory) Resource Identifier (mandatory) Resource Identifier (mandatory) Rights Management (mandatory) Rights Management (mandatory) Publisher Publisher Contributor Contributor Type Type Source Source Language Language Relation Relation Coverage Coverage Contributing Institution Contributing Institution CDP Metadata Working Group Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices CDP Metadata Working Group Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices BP.pdf BP.pdf

UALC – Where have we been? Adopted Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices Adopted Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices Just completed an extensive document with examples of how to apply Best Practices by format Just completed an extensive document with examples of how to apply Best Practices by format CONTENTdm based on Dublin Core CONTENTdm based on Dublin Core Aggregating server search fields (mapped to) Aggregating server search fields (mapped to) Creator Date Creator Date Title Type Title Type Subject Full text Subject Full text Description Identifier Description Identifier

Dublin Core: An Obituary Jeffrey Beall, Library Hi Tech News, Nov 8, 2004, pp Dublin Core metadata standard rapidly become obsolete, never caught on, outlived usefulness Dublin Core metadata standard rapidly become obsolete, never caught on, outlived usefulness Google essentially put it out of business Google essentially put it out of business Profit motive on the part of OCLC created by managers rather than practitioners Profit motive on the part of OCLC created by managers rather than practitioners Tried to be all things to all metadata users and lacked sufficient specificity to function as an operative descriptive schema Tried to be all things to all metadata users and lacked sufficient specificity to function as an operative descriptive schema

Weaknesses of Dublin Core Simple system Simple system “Its fundamental flaw is that it is designed as a lowest common denominator system. Thus, converting from anything else (especially MARC) into DC results in a loss of specificity (and thus data) and converting from DC into anything else (especially MARC) results in woefully substandard data.” --J. Hahn “Its fundamental flaw is that it is designed as a lowest common denominator system. Thus, converting from anything else (especially MARC) into DC results in a loss of specificity (and thus data) and converting from DC into anything else (especially MARC) results in woefully substandard data.” --J. Hahn Scores low on interoperability (hard to crosswalk) Scores low on interoperability (hard to crosswalk) Examples: Initial articles in titles, single subject fields to multiple 6XX subject fields in MARC, No subfields (Young, Brigham, – Family – Portraits) Examples: Initial articles in titles, single subject fields to multiple 6XX subject fields in MARC, No subfields (Young, Brigham, – Family – Portraits) Lack of standardization of entering data Lack of standardization of entering data No authorized forms of names, LCSH, no required fields in GENERIC form No authorized forms of names, LCSH, no required fields in GENERIC form

Why are we still using Dublin Core? Simplicity Simplicity Cost, training requirements, personnel, diverse institutional base of participants, digital production numbers expected Cost, training requirements, personnel, diverse institutional base of participants, digital production numbers expected Common denominator base for federated search Common denominator base for federated search Many disciplines, interest groups, and professions now developing standards Digital Library Tools haven’t supported other standards until recently Digital Library Tools haven’t supported other standards until recently

What’s the Answer? MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) Jeffrey Beal’s answer Strength: Intended to be able to carry selected data from existing MARC21 records and uses language-based tags rather than numeric ones METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) Strength: Allows for multiple standards to exist within a single metadata record. Employs XML schema language. “A new infrastructure would therefore be needed to support the hierarchical representation of data required in a METS environment” -- Final Report, CDP Metadata Standards Working Group Task Force on METS (May 2006) For the present, current tools in use point to DC (Dublin Core), but as tools mature, more is possible For the present, current tools in use point to DC (Dublin Core), but as tools mature, more is possible Encourage DiMeMa to offer other standards? Move? Require more machine produced metadata?