CA "METS, although in its early stages, is already sufficiently established amongst key digital library players that it can reasonably be considered the only viable standard for digital library objects in the foreseeable future. Although METS may be an excellent framework, it is just that and only that. It does not prescribe the content of the metadata itself, and this is a continuing problem for METS and all other schema to contend with if they are to realize their full functionality and usefulness."
Conclusions
RQ The standardization (via some sort of cataloging rules) of the content held by metadata "containers" urgently needs to be addressed. If not, the full value of any metadata scheme, no matter how extensible or robust, will not be realized.
Type
Web Page
Title
Creating and Documenting Text: A Guide to Good Practice
CA "The aim of this Guide is to take users through the basic steps involved in creating and documenting an electronic text or similar digital resource. ... This Guide assumes that the creators of electronic texts have a number of common concerns. For example, that they wish their efforts to remain viable and usable in the long-term, and not to be unduly constrained by the limitations of current hardware and software. Similarly, that they wish others to be able to reuse their work, for the purposes of secondary analysis, extension, or adaptation. They also want the tools, techniques, and standards that they adopt to enable them to capture those aspects of any non-electronic sources which they consider to be significant -- whilst at the same time being practical and cost-effective to implement."
Conclusions
RQ "While a single metadata scheme, adopted and implemented wholescale would be the ideal, it is probable that a proliferation of metadata schemes will emerge and be used by different communities. This makes the current work centred on integrated services and interoperability all the more important. ... The Warwick Framework (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/resources/wf.html) for example suggests the concept of a container architecture, which can support the coexistence of several independently developed and maintained metadata packages which may serve other functions (rights management, administrative metadata, etc.). Rather than attempt to provide a metadata scheme for all web resources, the Warwick Framework uses the Dublin Core as a starting point, but allows individual communities to extend this to fit their own subject-specific requirements. This movement towards a more decentralised, modular and community-based solution, where the 'communities of expertise' themselves create the metadata they need has much to offer. In the UK, various funded organisations such as the AHDS (http://ahds.ac.uk/), and projects like ROADS (http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/roads/) and DESIRE (http://www.desire.org/) are all involved in assisting the development of subject-based information gateways that provide metadata-based services tailored to the needs of particular user communities."
This document is a revision and expansion of "Metadata Made Simpler: A guide for libraries," published by NISO Press in 2001.
Publisher
NISO Press
Critical Arguements
CA An overview of what metadata is and does, aimed at librarians and other information professionals. Describes various metadata schemas. Concludes with a bibliography and glossary.
Type
Web Page
Title
Descriptive Metadata Guidelines for RLG Cultural Materials
To ensure that the digital collections submitted to RLG Cultural Materials can be discovered and understood, RLG has compiled these Descriptive Metadata Guidelines for contributors. While these guidelines reflect the needs of one particular service, they also represent a case study in information sharing across community and national boundaries. RLG Cultural Materials engages a wide range of contributors with different local practices and institutional priorities. Since it is impossible to find -- and impractical to impose -- one universally applicable standard as a submission format, RLG encourages contributors to follow the suite of standards applicable to their particular community (p.1).
Critical Arguements
CA "These guidelines . . . do not set a new standard for metadata submission, but rather support a baseline that can be met by any number of strategies, enabling participating institutions to leverage their local descriptions. These guidelines also highlight the types of metadata that enhance functionality for RLG Cultural Materials. After a contributor submits a collection, RLG maps that description into the RLG Cultural Materials database using the RLG Cultural Materials data model. This ensures that metadata from the various participant communities is integrated for efficient searching and retrieval" (p.1).
Conclusions
RQ Not applicable.
SOW
DC RLG comprises more than 150 research and cultural memory institutions, and RLG Cultural Materials elicits contributions from countless museums, archives, and libraries from around the world that, although they might retain local descriptive standards and metadata schemas, must conform to the baseline standards prescribed in this document in order to integrate into RLG Cultural Materials. Appendix A represents and evaluates the most common metadata standards with which RLG Cultural Materians is able to work.
Museums and the Online Archive of California (MOAC) builds on existing standards and their implementation guidelines provided by the Online Archive of California (OAC) and its parent organization, the California Digital Library (CDL). Setting project standards for MOAC consisted of interpreting existing OAC/CDL documents and adapting them to the projects specific needs, while at the same time maintaining compliance with OAC/CDL guidelines. The present overview over the MOAC technical standards references both the OAC/CDL umbrella document and the MOAC implementation / adaptation document at the beginning of each section, as well as related resources which provide more detail on project specifications.
Critical Arguements
CA The project implements specifications for digital image production, as well as three interlocking file exchange formats for delivering collections, digital images and their respective metadata. Encoded Archival Description (EAD) XML describes the hierarchy of a collection down to the item-level and traditionally serves for discovering both the collection and the individual items within it. For viewing multiple images associated with a single object record, MOAC utilizes Making of America 2 (MOA2) XML. MOA2 makes the images representing an item available to the viewer through a navigable table of contents; the display mimics the behavior of the analog item by e.g. allowing end-users to browse through the pages of an artist's book. Through the further extension of MOA2 with Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Lite XML, not only does every single page of the book display in its correct order, but a transcription of its textual content also accompanies the digital images.
Conclusions
RQ "These two instances of fairly significant changes in the project's specifications may serve as a gentle reminder that despite its solid foundation in standards, the MOAC information architecture will continue to face the challenge of an ever-changing technical environment."
SOW
DC The author is Digital Media Developer at the UC Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archives, a member of the MOAC consortium.
Type
Web Page
Title
Imaging Nuggets: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard
CA The main advantages of METS consists of the following: First, it provides a syntax for transferring the entire digital objects along with their associated metadata and other supporting files. Second, it provides a functional syntax, a basis for providing users the means of navigating through and manipulating the object. Third, it provides a syntax for archiving the data as an integrated whole.
