1. Lifecycle Metadata for Digital Objects September 11, 2002 Major archival and digital library metadata schemes

2. NHPRC Initiative, 1991 Research Issues in Electronic Records http://www.archives.gov/nhprc_and_other_ grants/electronic_records/research_issues_r eport.html#recommendationshttp://www.archives.gov/nhprc_and_other_ grants/electronic_records/research_issues_r eport.html#recommendations 1992 review of research agenda, MN Historical Society

3. University of Pittsburgh Project 1992-1996 “Business Acceptable Communications” “Warrant” for functional requirements –Legal –Records Management –Management –Medical –Archival

4. Pittsburgh metadata reference model in six layers Handle Terms & Conditions Structural Contextual Content Use History

5. Handle layer Unique identifier –Record declaration –Transaction domain –Transaction instance Discovery metadata –Description standard –Descriptors –Language

6. Terms & Conditions Layer Restrictions status Access conditions Use conditions Disposition requirements

7. Structural Layer File identification metadata File encoding metadata File rendering metadata Record rendering metadata Content structure metadata Source metadata

8. Contextual Layer Transaction context metadata Responsibility metadata System accountability metadata

9. Content Layer (actual data) Use History Layer type instance user consequences

10. Indiana University test of BAC Evaluating administrative recordkeeping systems at IU Testing functional requirements Mapping metadata requirements –Elimination of “metadata encapsulated objects” –Reduction in structural metadata –Pulled back from record-level metadata to record, file, class levels –Influenced by MoReq –Lacks understanding of implementation issues

11. InterPARES Project Initially a University of British Columbia project that led to DoD STD 5015.2 Aim to establish characteristics of a reliable and authentic electronic record InterPARES is international project funded by NHPRC, SSRC, etc. Aim to establish rest of record life cycle

12. InterPARES case studies Examine digital recordkeeping systems in wide variety of contexts worldwide Qualitative methods used to discover how records are used, carry out functional analysis Data used to provide basis for modeling preservation processes

13. InterPARES basis in diplomatics 19 th -century method for establishing genuineness of documents Defines four types of records: –Dispositive (form is essence of evidence) –Probative (written form part of evidence) –Supporting (written form discretionary, procedurally linked to action) –Narrative (provide context)

14. InterPARES Authenticity template Documentary form –Extrinsic elements –Intrinsic elements Annotations Medium Context

15. InterPARES findings, 2002 Hopes for a clear typology dashed after four rounds Contemporary systems too fluid for model –No fixed form or content –No annotations –Embedded in social contexts –Managed procedurally

16. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Supported by OCLC Primarily a surrogate/discovery metadata scheme Does not aim to document everything Useful for management of active digital objects

17. Dublin Core elements Title Creator Subject Description Publisher Contributor Date Type Format Identifier Source Language Relation Coverage Rights

18. Dublin Core development Initial development of simple elements Subelements and user communities Warwick Framework RDF and XML

19. Dublin Core in HTML environment Example: MDAH http://www.mdah.state.ms.us Example:

20. Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) Developed out of LoC’s MOA project Designed to support maintenance of library of digital objects Three overall types of metadata –Descriptive –Administrative –Structural

21. METS Descriptive metadata External (e.g., finding aid) Internal (part of the document)

22. METS Administrative metadata Technical metadata Intellectual property rights metadata Source metadata (re analog source) Digital provenance metadata –Relations between files –Migration/transformation data

23. METS Structural metadata File groups list Structural map (defines relations between files and METS element structure) Behavior segment (associates executable methods with specific content elements, e.g. for display)

24. METS and XML The METS XML schema http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets_xs d/mets.htmlhttp://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets_xs d/mets.html Why is it all so complicated? How can anyone ever keep track of all this metadata?