ELAG 2006: WS2 Report European Metadata Registry Influence Interoperability Workshop 2 Report ELAG 2006

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Participants Oliver Greening (UK) Julie Verleyen (NL) Thomas Hickey (USA) Nicoleta Rahme (RO) Adina Riposan (RO) Victor Dutescu (RO) Oftawina Gomaga (RO) Petra Otten (NL) Emma Tonkin (UK) Susanna Peruginelli (IT)

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Why discuss a ‘European Metadata Registry’? “Consultation results have helped the Commission to further define the practical set-up of the European Digital Library, which will provide a highly visible, multilingual access point, dedicated to the digital resource of Europe’s cultural institutions. It will build upon the TEL infrastructure, currently the gateway to the catalogue records of collections in a number of national libraries, which also gives access to arrange of digital resources of the participating libraries” Source: European Commission, Brussels, 2 March 2006 IP/06/253

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Workshop aims Assess if there is a need for a EMR and if this need is short term or long term Define the role/functions of a EMR (assuming there is a need) Make recommendations for the creation of a EMR Outline the issues and challenges faced by the realisation and development of an EMR

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Assumptions There is a ambition in Europe to develop a multilingual online access point to digital resources (catalogue records) of Europe’s cultural institutions There are several activities that are taking steps/have taken steps to realise this ambition – European Digital Library, TEL, MICHAEL, CORNUCOPIA (UK), MUSIP (Netherlands) etc. The structure and culture of Museum, Library and Archive communities within Europe are diverse Cultural institutions have different ways of digitising and extracting data There is a need to improve interoperability between existing systems in the short term and a need to encourage standardisation in the long term

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Adopted approach What information/guidance is needed to encourage standardisation within Europe’s cultural communities (museum, libraries, archives)? Is a Metadata Registry (such as the TEL MR) a useful resource to support standardisation and interoperability? –If yes, are the components/functions of the TEL MR appropriate/sufficient? –If no, what other approaches could be considered?

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Anticipated data, information & tools Term definitions Encoding schemes used Relationships with other terms Where terms have been used (i.e. in which application profiles) Documentation on issues encountered when term created/implemented Register of application profiles Recommended application profiles for different material types Facility to search for metadata terms Procedures to support controlled evolution of application profiles Mappings to application profiles

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Registry development Key stakeholders: Data providers (cultural institutions) –specifications, data elements, application profiles, feedback, recommendations Developer community –data transfer models Implementers (working groups with thematic/community representation) –shared ‘lossy’ application profiles Metadata groups –schemas, application profiles, formal recommendations

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Registry development Initial steps in development process: Establish Working Groups for each cultural community to move towards agreed application profile In parallel, develop user scenarios (EDL) that will generate requirements for the metadata registry An iterative process that needs to balance user scenarios, developer realities and application profiles (‘chicken and egg’ scenarios)

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Challenges and issues Uncertainty of EDL scope Language and culture of European countries Diverse cultural communities within Europe Different metadata standards and data models in use Funding – level and sources (short and long term) Ownership – policy, authentification, maintenance, and administration responsibilities Sustainability - identifying and communicating stakeholder benefits

ELAG 2006: WS2 Report Recommendations Capture all metadata element sets in use within each cultural community to allow widest possible scope for development Adopt a modular development approach to allow flexibility Build on experience of The European Library (TEL) and interoperability efforts within individual cultural communities