Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byRiver Ivie Modified over 9 years ago
1
A Comparative Analysis Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D., USA Presented at IFLA satellite postconference “Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the Digital Environment and Semantic Web” August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
2
Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) 2 O.Zavalina'2012
3
Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) Used in digital libraries to organize information 3 O.Zavalina'2012
4
Metadata — “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object” (Greenberg, 2005) Used in digital libraries to organize information Functions supported: Find Identify Select Obtain ( IFLA, 1998; 2008 ) 4 O.Zavalina'2012
5
5 draws data values from the natural language: Estonian capital Tallinn is located in Northern Europe IFLA’s Classification and Indexing Section Free-text metadata O.Zavalina'2012
6
6 draws data values from the natural language: Estonian capital Tallinn is located in Northern Europe IFLA’s Classification and Indexing Section draws data values from formally- maintained list of terms Free-text metadata Controlled-vocabulary metadata draws data values from formally- maintained list of terms O.Zavalina'2012
7
“Metadata providing a high-level description of an aggregation of individual items” (Macgregor, 2003) Describes collection as a whole Has long been used in archival community Is now used in digital libraries Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 7 O.Zavalina'2012
8
Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 8 O.Zavalina'2012 Example of collection-level metadata record from The European Library
9
Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL 9 O.Zavalina'2012 Example of collection-level metadata record from The European Library Free-text Controlled- vocabulary
10
“information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) 10 O.Zavalina'2012
11
“information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries 11 O.Zavalina'2012
12
“information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements: 12 O.Zavalina'2012
13
“information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements: free-text Description 13 O.Zavalina'2012
14
“information concerning what the resource is about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel, 2009) crucial for subject access to information objects and collections in digital libraries Dublin Core Collections Application Profile suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata elements: free-text Description controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object], Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage 14 O.Zavalina'2012
15
Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections O.Zavalina'2012 15
16
Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them O.Zavalina'2012 16
17
Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to: O.Zavalina'2012 17
18
Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to: give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000) O.Zavalina'2012 18
19
Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to: give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000) help narrow search scope to increase precision and ease of use O.Zavalina'2012 19
20
Portals that bring together hundreds of digital collections provide single unique point of entry to them (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to: give the user important contextual information for harvested items (Miller, 2000) help narrow search scope to increase precision and ease of use assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003; 2005) O.Zavalina'2012 20
21
Most digital libraries only create free-text collection-level metadata default in content management systems (e.g., DSpace) saves time of metadata creator 21 O.Zavalina'2012 Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection from American Memory and Opening History
22
Most digital libraries only create free-text collection-level metadata default in content management systems (e.g., DSpace) saves time of metadata creator Even when available, controlled- vocabulary collection-level metadata is often NOT displayed to the end user 22 O.Zavalina'2012 Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection from American Memory and Opening History
23
Fitness for the purpose of supporting user tasks: find identify select obtain 23 O.Zavalina'2012
24
Fitness for the purpose of supporting user tasks: find identify select obtain Quality criteria Accuracy Consistency Completeness … 24 O.Zavalina'2012
25
Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008) 25 O.Zavalina'2012
26
Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008) Research evaluating collection-level metadata is in its infancy 26 O.Zavalina'2012
27
Evaluation of metadata in digital libraries is more and more important to ensure metadata quality has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008) Research evaluating collection-level metadata is in its infancy Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008) Single digital library Zavalina (2011) compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3 large-scale digital libraries 27 O.Zavalina'2012
28
Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata 28 O.Zavalina'2012
29
Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields 29 O.Zavalina'2012
30
Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields One-way complementarity Two-way complementarity Redundancy 30 O.Zavalina'2012
31
Comparative analysis of collection-level subject metadata between free-text (Description) and controlled- vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields One-way complementarity Two-way complementarity Redundancy across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA 31 O.Zavalina'2012
32
32 O.Zavalina'2012
33
33 O.Zavalina'2012
34
34 O.Zavalina'2012
35
↑↑↑ In 22% of records free-text Description complemented 2+ controlled- vocabulary subject metadata fields. ↔ Two-way complementarity occurred in 40% of records mostly between Description and Subject 35 O.Zavalina'2012
36
36 Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) O.Zavalina'2012
37
37 Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”) O.Zavalina'2012
38
38 Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”) Description specifies dates in Temporal Coverage “1930 through 2011”. O.Zavalina'2012
39
39 Description complements Subject: topical information (“foodways, religious traditions, Native American culture, maritime traditions, ethnic folk culture, material culture”) occupational subject information (“musicians, craftpersons, storytellers, folklife interpreters”) Description specifies dates in Temporal Coverage “1930 through 2011”. Description complements Object Type: genre information (“children’s lore,” “occupational lore,” “performances,” “interviews,” “surveys”). O.Zavalina'2012
40
Subject lists additional topics not covered by Description (e.g., “Architecture”). 40 O.Zavalina'2012
41
41 Subject lists additional topics not covered by Description (e.g., “Architecture”). Geographic Coverage provides spatial information absent in Description United States (nation) Southern U.S. (general region) Florida (state). O.Zavalina'2012
42
“towns of Coal City, Braidwood, and Wilmington” in Description “dance instruction manuals, anti-dance manuals, histories, treatises on etiquette” in Description “Illinois (state), Grundy (county)” in Geographic Coverage “Ballroom dancing—United States” in Subjects ↔↔↔↔ 42 O.Zavalina'2012
43
“newspaper photographs” in Description “contemporary, … European age of chivalry, … prior to 1900” in Description “photographs; archival finding aids” in Object Type “1200-1900” in Temporal Coverage ↔↔↔↔ 43 O.Zavalina'2012
44
Only in European Library (19%) Examples: DescriptionGeo. Coverage Estonia Ljubljana Netherlands DescriptionTemp. Coverage 1763 DescriptionSubject photographs 44 O.Zavalina'2012
45
High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata 45 O.Zavalina'2012
46
High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata mutually complementary 46 O.Zavalina'2012
47
High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata mutually complementary allow more fully representing intellectual content of information objects 47 O.Zavalina'2012
48
High complementarity & little redundancy in collection-level subject metadata More detailed collection-level metadata records include BOTH free-text and controlled- vocabulary subject metadata mutually complementary allow more fully representing intellectual content of information objects ultimately improve subject access for the users. 48 O.Zavalina'2012
49
Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available 49 O.Zavalina'2012
50
Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in National standards Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO) 50 O.Zavalina'2012
51
Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in National standards Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO) International standards Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA). 51 O.Zavalina'2012
52
Guidelines for creating high-quality collection-level subject metadata are not currently available can be incorporated in National standards Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (US NISO) International standards Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA). Require more extensive analysis of collection-level subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries with different subject focus & scale built in various countries 52 O.Zavalina'2012
53
Oksana.Zavalina@unt.edu Aitäh 53 O.Zavalina'2012
54
Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker. Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80. Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization. Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436. Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly, 75(1), 67-85. Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library Review, 52(6), 247-250. Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.) Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B. McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer. Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292. Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, (pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 54 O.Zavalina'2012
55
The European Library Sally Chambers American Memory Christa Maher Opening History IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content project team 55 O.Zavalina'2012
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.