1. Metadata and Versioning VIF workshop 22 nd April 2008 1

2. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Metadata & repositories There are two levels to capturing information about an object: The conceptual view of the world used by the repository system this is set by the system designer(s) The metadata fields used & labelled within your implementation of the repository system this is within the repository manager’s remit

3. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Fit for purpose metadata Every implementation of an IR is unlikely to use exactly the same set of metadata fields, even in relation to versioning information It is therefore important to ensure that you record the semantics of the fields and can map them to other standard metadata schemes to be able to transfer and share your records. The Framework contains suggested field mapping for some of the major metadata schemes. Application profiles provide a way of sharing your repository content whilst preserving the semantic meaning

4. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Application profiles: our recommendations Application profiles developed so far are based on FRBR and so have versioning relationships captured within the model. Using application profiles to expose your repository content to harvesters ensures that the internal versioning information is available externally Application profiles exist, or are being developed for Scholarly Works, Images, Geospatial information and Time Based information.

5. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Key pieces of information VIF has identified five key pieces of information which make versions easier to identify. The important point is to make them as transparent as possible

6. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Dates: our recommendations Need to be clear about which date has been used and be consistent within the repository. Dates relating to the object and dates to do with the deposit or alteration of the object in the repository should be clearly labeled Pros Obvious, simple & effective Able to put in lots of places Applicable to all types of objects Supported by survey respondents Cons Easy to introduce ambiguity Workflow is not always linear in time Misinterpretation of dates possible Simple, unqualified DC doesn’t allow for date disambiguation

7. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Identifiers: our recommendations Record all identifiers available for an object Consider persistence for any identifier you are responsible for creating/assigning Pros Obvious, simple & effective Able to use identifiers to cross-link to the same object in another repository Applicable to all types of objects Cons Need to be clear about the identifier & the provenance Displaying all identifiers may lead to dead links over time

8. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Version numbering: our recommendations Content creators should consider using a uniform, consistent numbering system. Pros Obvious, simple & effective Good for sole authors Cons Hard to ensure consistency across more than one author Number doesn’t describe the place in the workflow

9. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Labeling/Taxonomies: our recommendations Clarity of versions is important, but the terminology is not static. Consistent usage within one repository, for particular items may be achievable. Explicit definition of vocabulary and consistent use is very important. Pros Defines version in a workflow Cons Easy to introduce ambiguity No one taxonomy will cover all potential object types

10. VIF Workshop 22 nd April 2008 www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif Text descriptions: our recommendations Free text is an easy way to qualify other version information and to relate it to an object. Need to use this in conjunction with some of the other suggestions for best practice Pros Authoritative if written by the author Can give clarity to complex relationships Easy to understand for the end users Cons No control of content or vocabulary Issues around “final” It may be difficult to get end users to complete the field during deposit

11. Next…. Questions to the speakers & discussion on implementation, support and general metadata issues VIF workshop 22 nd April 2008 11