1. Some Options for Non-MARC Descriptive Metadata
Jenn Riley
TS Cataloging Division Meeting
12/9/2008

2. Good metadata… Is fit for purpose
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Good metadata…
Is fit for purpose
Conforms to accepted standards and/or best practices
Doesn’t have to be created by humans

3. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Metadata formats
Predefined sets of features likely to be necessary or useful for a specific purpose
Choosing a format others also use improves interoperability
Can be:
Official standards
Backed by professional organization
Backed by trusted institution
Locally developed

4. Descriptive metadata For discovery For display
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Descriptive metadata
For discovery
Includes both search and browse
In a controlled environment designed to match target users with interesting resources
Pushed out to the network for others to make use of
For display
Gives a user the context they need to understand a resource
Can be both objective and subjective
Usually (but not always) human-generated

5. Some descriptive metadata structure standards
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Some descriptive metadata structure standards
MARC in XML (MARCXML)
Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)
Dublin Core (DC)
Unqualified (simple)
Qualified

6. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MARC in XML (MARCXML)
Copies the exact structure of MARC21 in an XML syntax
Numeric fields
Alphabetic subfields
Implicit assumption that content/value standards are the same as in MARC

7. Limitations of MARCXML
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Limitations of MARCXML
Not appropriate for direct data entry
Extremely verbose syntax
Full content validation requires tools external to XML Schema conformance

8. Best times to use MARCXML
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Best times to use MARCXML
As a transition format between a MARC record and another XML-encoded metadata format
Materials lend themselves to library-type description
Want to follow library cataloging traditions
Want XML representation to store within larger digital object but need lossless conversion to MARC

9. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MARCXML example

10. Common method of creation By derivation
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MARCXML
MODS DC
QDC
Record format
XML
Field labels
Numeric
Reliance on AACR
Strong
Common method of creation
By derivation

11. Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)
Developed and managed by the Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office
First released for trial use June 2002
MODS 3.3 released January 2008
For encoding bibliographic information
Influenced by MARC, but not equivalent
Quickly gaining adoption

12. Differences between MODS and MARC
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Differences between MODS and MARC
MODS is “MARC-like” but intended to be simpler
Textual tag names
Encoded in XML
Some specific changes
Some regrouping of elements
Removes some elements
Adds some elements

13. Content/value standards for MODS
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Content/value standards for MODS
Many elements indicate a given content/value standard should be used
Generally follows MARC/AACR2/ISBD conventions
But not all enforced by the MODS XML schema
Authority attribute available on many elements
Not limited to data elements AACR2 controls
MODS User Guidelines recommend vocabularies for many elements

14. Limitations of MODS No lossless round-trip conversion from and to MARC
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Limitations of MODS
No lossless round-trip conversion from and to MARC
Still largely implemented by library community only
Tools for creation only recently starting to emerge

15. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Good times to use MODS
Materials lend themselves to library-type description
Want to reach both library and non-library audiences
Need a reasonable level of robustness
Want XML representation to store within larger digital object

16. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MODS example

17. By specialists and by derivation
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MARCXML
MODS DC
QDC
Record format
XML
Field labels
Numeric
Text
Reliance on AACR
Strong
Implied
Common method of creation
By derivation
By specialists and by derivation

18. Unqualified (Simple) Dublin Core
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Unqualified (Simple) Dublin Core
15-element set
National and international standard
2001: Released as ANSI/NISO Z39.85
2003: Released as ISO 15836
Maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)
Other players
DCMI Communities
DCMI Task Groups
DCMI Usage Board
DCMI Advisory Board

19. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
DCMI mission
[promote] the widespread adoption of interoperable metadata standards and developing specialized metadata vocabularies for describing resources that enable more intelligent information discovery systems.
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative provides simple standards to facilitate the finding, sharing and management of information. DCMI does this by:
Developing and maintaining international standards for describing resources
Supporting a worldwide community of users and developers
Promoting widespread use of Dublin Core solutions

20. DC Principles “Core” across all knowledge domains No element required
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
DC Principles
“Core” across all knowledge domains
No element required
All elements repeatable
1:1 principle

21. DC encodings HTML <meta> XML RDF [Spreadsheets] [Databases]
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
DC encodings
HTML <meta>
XML
RDF
[Spreadsheets]
[Databases]

22. Content/value standards for DC
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Content/value standards for DC
None required
Some elements recommend a content or value standard as a best practice
Coverage
Date
Format
Language
Identifier
Relation
Source
Subject
Type

23. Some limitations of DC Widely misunderstood
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Some limitations of DC
Widely misunderstood
Can’t indicate a main title vs. other subordinate titles
No method for specifying creator roles
W3CDTF format can’t indicate date ranges or uncertainty
Can’t by itself provide robust record relationships

24. Good times to use DC Cross-collection searching Cross-domain discovery
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Good times to use DC
Cross-collection searching
Cross-domain discovery
Metadata sharing
Describing some types of simple resources
Metadata creation by novices

25. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Simple DC example

26. Common method of creation By derivation
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MARCXML
MODS DC
QDC
Record format
XML
RDF
(X)HTML
Field labels
Numeric
Text
Reliance on AACR
Strong
Implied
None
Common method of creation
By derivation
By specialists and by derivation
By novices, by specialists, and by derivation

27. Qualified Dublin Core (QDC)
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Qualified Dublin Core (QDC)
Adds some increased specificity to Unqualified Dublin Core
Same governance structure as DC
Same encodings as DC
Same content/value standards as DC
Listed in DMCI Terms
Additional principles
Extensibility
Dumb-down principle
Extensibility: via Application Profiles and local qualifiers. Local qualifiers maybe not kosher but there are no metadata police. Usually.

28. Types of DC qualifiers Additional elements Element refinements
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Types of DC qualifiers
Additional elements
Element refinements
Encoding schemes
Vocabulary encoding schemes
Syntax encoding schemes

29. Limitations of QDC Widely misunderstood
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Limitations of QDC
Widely misunderstood
No method for specifying creator roles
W3CDTF format can’t indicate date ranges or uncertainty
Split across 3 XML schemas
No encoding in XML officially endorsed by DCMI

30. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Best times to use QDC
More specificity needed than simple DC, but not a fundamentally different approach to description
Want to share DC with others, but need a few extensions for your local environment
Describing some types of simple resources
Metadata creation by novices

31. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Qualified DC example

32. Common method of creation By derivation
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
MARCXML
MODS DC
QDC
Record format
XML
RDF
(X)HTML
Field labels
Numeric
Text
Reliance on AACR
Strong
Implied
None
Common method of creation
By derivation
By specialists and by derivation
By novices, by specialists, and by derivation

33. Some other options VRA Core Darwin Core FGDC ETD-MS33
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Some other options
VRA Core
Darwin Core
FGDC
ETD-MS
Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP)
Collection Description Application Profile … 33

34. How do I pick one? Robustness needed for the given materials and users
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
How do I pick one?
Robustness needed for the given materials and users
Genre/format of materials being described
Nature of holding institution
Use and audience for the metadata
What others in the community are doing
Describing analog vs. digitized item
Mechanisms for providing relationships between records
Plan for interoperability, including repeatability of elements
Formats supported by your metadata creation and delivery software

35. No, really, how do I pick one?
TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
No, really, how do I pick one?
Every implementation is a compromise
Balance
Innovation and production
Robustness and expediency
Ideal and ease technical implementation

36. TS Cataloging Division
12/9/2008
Thanks.
Slides at: < tscatdiv2008/tsCatalogingDivisionDec2008.ppt>