Tracking Metadata Use for Digital Collections Ellen Knutson, Carole L. Palmer, Michael Twidale Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institute of Museum and Library Services Digital Collections and Content Funded by a National Leadership Grant from: Number of Participating Institutions by Type Metadata by Collaboration Percentage of Institutions by Metadata Scheme Metadata for Collections Containing Images IntroductionMethod Themes from Interviews Conclusion from Content Analysis How can resource developers best represent digital collections and items to meet the requirements of divergent service providers and user communities? Our first goal is to establish a baseline that describes the institutions, collections, and initial metadata schemes of Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National Leadership Grant (NLG) digital collection projects. We performed a content analysis of 95 NLG proposals funded from 1998 to Project web sites were also consulted in cases where the information was not specified in the proposal. Interviews are ongoing with a selected group of grantees. Preliminary results from 13 interviews are reported here. MARC and Dublin Core (DC) are the most often used metadata schemes in these projects. Academic libraries make up the majority of the institutions involved in creating digital collections. Institutions working alone were more likely to select the MARC standard, while institutions working on a collaborative project were more likely to select DC. For collections including images (80% of collections), DC is the most popular. MARC is also used frequently, either on its own, combined with DC, or with CIMI (Computer Interchange of Museum Information) standards, VRA Core (Visual Resource Association Core), EAD or TEI Header. Scheme Selection Factors Previous experience Use by partners and peers Ease of training Coverage of basic elements Basis for Local Variations Need for specific information Responsiveness to existing data Adherence to project goals Richness vs. Simplicity MARC preferred for field richness Dublin Core preferred for ease of application Nonstandard use of fields more prevalent with Dublin Core Key Challenges/Problems Software/technical limitations Disparate Formats Disparate metadata schemes Priorities/Time Key Collection Description Fields Institutions Subject Description Format of Material Original Collection Projects and Collections Participants could envision their project as both a single collection and multiple collections. The delineation of multiple collections was generally by institution for collaborative projects and by format for non-collaborative projects. Further Research The DCC project is currently in the process of conducting a survey with the 95 institutions to further develop the baseline analysis. As our research continues, we will be investigating other factors at play in metadata applications and how they evolve as projects progress and collections are used. Over the next two years, we will conduct interviews and focus groups with a representative group of NLG grant awardees, and will also administer a second large-scale survey in the final year of the project. The "Other" category includes three government agencies, two special libraries, two companies, two herbaria, a zoo, a Native American tribe, a state park, and a national historic site. The “Other” metadata schemes specified include: EAD, TEI Header, CSDGM, VRA Core, CIMI standards, and Ebind.