Metadata Blog

The RDA Update Forum was organized by the Cataloging and Classification Section (CSS) of the Associations for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS). It was held on Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 at 10:30am in the Lecture Hall of the Pennsylvania Convention Center. It featured 3 speakers: Beecher Wiggins (from The Library of Congress), Marjorie Bloss (the RDA Project Manager) and John Attig (the ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee).

Wiggins presented the response of The Committee of Principals for the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules and Resource Description and Access to the Library of Congress’ Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. CoP disagrees very strongly with the Working Group’s recommendation to suspend work on RDA pending further testing of the FRBR conceptual model. CoP recommended that LoC continue offering input on the development of RDA, as starting a new FRBR study group from scratch would be both more expensive & less efficient than continuing work with RDA. CoP also noted that LoC’s potential withdrawal from the project could push back RDA’s release date even further.

=> Read more!

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)
Liaison Report
Submitted by Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

CC:DA discussions and actions at ALA Midwinter 2008 in Philadelphia.
RDA
Work on RDA is proceeding on schedule with a targeted release date of early 2009. In a press release after the JSC meeting in October, the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Library and Archives Canada, and the National Library of Australia stated their support for RDA and agreed on a coordinated implementation in late 2009 and would work together on such matters as training, documentation, and any national application decisions. Though the final report of the LC Working Group on Bibliographic Control recommended suspension of work on RDA until FRBR is more fully tested, LC staff (as of ALA anyway) have not been informed of any change in LC’s participation in the RDA process, are operating with the assumption that the process is going forward as planned. Some Big Heads attendees were told that LC administration was going to discuss this after ALA. Given the mixed messages from LC, it is difficult as of this writing to know exactly how active their participation will be in future.
The JSC reorganized the contents of RDA again to relate data elements more closely to FRBR entities and user tasks. It will have 10 sections (37 chapters) that focus first on recording attributes for FRBR and FRAD entities and then on recording relationships between entities. As has been noted by many reviewers, much of the text of RDA is identical to AACR2. However, the context has been greatly changed, and understanding a rule in AACR2 does not necessarily mean that one will understand the RDA version of the rule. As Barbara Tillett noted at CC:DA, it is very difficult to simplify wording without introducing ambiguity. For the current RDA prospectus and draft outline of chapters, see
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdaprospectus.html
and for the RDA scope and structure document, see
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-scoperev2.pdf
RDA is not tied to any specific record structure. The JSC has provided three implementation scenarios that RDA must support: a scenario for flat records, a scenario for combination of current (i.e. Marc21 compliant) bibliographic, authority, and holdings records, and a scenario for a relational/object oriented database structure which includes records for work, expression, manifestation, item, and a type of record for persons/places/concepts, etc. Though MARBI is discussing implementation issues, there is now an admission that a new, post-MARC data format is necessary to implement the optimal (relational/object oriented) scenario. Due to time constraints, however, initial implementation will surely be Marc21 with as many modifications as can be made by the implementation rollout. For the RDA implementation scenarios, see
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5editor2.pdf
and
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5editor4.pdf

CC:DA discussions January 2008

CC:DA met three times at ALA Midwinter, with most business concerning the RDA draft and the report of the JSC representative. This latest draft concerns identifying and recording attributes of works, persons, families, corporate bodies. There are more attributes than are recorded in current MARC21 authority records. This is the last new material to be issued before July, when the final draft including all previously issued material will be released. There will be placeholders for future material that will not be released until 2009 or later. That draft may be in a hyperlinked form, which we are assured will be much easier to navigate than the paper/PDF drafts. It was reiterated at the meeting that a print product is also needed. An RDA implementation task force has been created and a program is planned for Annual.
Other CC:DA activities included reports on:
Recent Library of Congress activities by Barbara Tillett
NISO, by Cindy Hepfer, ALA’s new representative
Task Force on Specialist Cataloging Manuals, Mark Scharff – this generated a question as to whether it is appropriate to include manuals based on AACR2 since AACR2 will be obsolete on the publication of RDA, thus rendering the specialist manuals also obsolete.
ALA publishing, by Donald Chatham
MARBI, by Everett Allgood
PCC guidelines on Multiple Character Sets, by Peter Fletcher
CC:DA internal and external communication, by Laura Smart – note that there will soon be a public CC:DA listserv
CCS Executive Committee, by Cheri Folkner

Midwinter was the forum for the inaugural meeting of a new Task Force within the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of ACRL: The Digitization in Special Collections Task Force. Yours truly (Rebekah Irwin, Beinecke Library, Yale University) will serve as Task Force chair. Additional Task Force members are Jackie Dooley (UC-Irvine), Elaine Smyth (LSU), and Katherine Reagan (Cornell). Membership remained open to several more members (this open volunteer period ended 1/24/2008).

The meeting began with a review of the preliminary charge:

The [Task Force] has been charged with exploring the feasibility of formulating guidelines for the digitization of special collections materials, especially the management of large-scale and cooperative digitization projects, particularly as such guidelines may be helpful in articulating to institutional administrators and commercial partners the unique requirements that should be addressed in planning the digitization of special collections.

Approximately 45 people from a wide array of national and international special collections and archives attended the meeting and it was noted that a larger room will be needed for ALA Annual in Anaheim. Attendees squatted on the floor, perched high atop a buffet, and leaned on walls. Discussion at the meeting was enthusiastic and energetic. Ideas were far-ranging and at times, beyond the scope of a short-term Task Force. It is clear that the Special Collections community is looking for guidance in the areas of large-scale and small-scale digitization and management of born digital objects that are increasingly part of contemporary archival collections. It was also noted that while much exists on this topic, RBMS serves as the professional gathering place for special collections communities (particularly the rare books world) and vetted guidance from this Section is needed. It was noted that the Task Force will articulate a more formal charge based on the needs of RBMS members and special collections' professionals. A formal draft charge will be submitted by June 2008 at ALA Annual. In addition to a formal draft charge, the following deliverables were discussed:

* Recommendation to draft a professional statement of Core Principles for Digitization in Special Collections

* Recommendation that RBMS establish a standing committee on digital issues in place of a short-term Task Force

* Recommendation to schedule an open discussion session at the RBMS Preconference, June 2008

* Recommendation to create a webliography of existing important literature and resources (white papers, handbooks, research reports, journal articles)

*Recommendation to establish a communication tool or network to support the ongoing exchange of information as related to digitization in Special Collections. Suggested tools were a listserv, blog, or a wiki.

A final plug was made for the 2008 RBMS Preconference, "Rare and Special Bytes: Special Collections in the Digital Era" June 24-27, at The Getty and UCLA, Los Angeles. Speakers include: Alice Prochaska, University Librarian, Yale University; Peter Hirtle, Technology Strategist and University Library IP Officer, Cornell University; Richard Szary, Director, Louis Round Wilson Library, and Associate University Librarian for Special Collections, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Barbara Taranto, Director, New York Public Library Digital Library Program; Karen Calhoun, Vice President, OCLC WorldCat and Metadata Services; Tom Scheinfeldt, Managing Director, Center for History and New Media, and Assistant Professor, Department of Art and Art History, George Mason University; among others.

Maureen P. Walsh, Metadata Librarian, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University Libraries
Topic: Institutional Repository Metadata
(Presentation slides and handouts are available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/1811/31699 )

The Ohio State University's Institutional Repository is also called “the Knowledge Bank” (https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/index.jsp). As a Metadata Librarian at OSU, Walsh addressed some of the important issues on institutional repository metadata, such as metadata schemes, crosswalking, data normalization, harvesting from the viewpoint of shareable metadata and customization of metadata display and user interfaces.

Currently, the Knowledge Bank has 40 communities and about 29, 573 records. The types of materials they deposit include journals, monographs, undergraduate thesis, conference materials, technical reports, images and oral histories. Based on the statistics from ROAR (Registry of Open Access Repositories), deposits in Knowledge Bank increased steadily from 2004 to 2007. In 2007, 5 days of the daily deposits were over 100 items, and 47 days of the daily deposits were between 10 and 99. The Knowledge Bank has been harvested by Google, Google Scholar, OpenDOAR, CIC Metadata Portal and OAIster. Walsh discussed the KB metadata application profile, Metadata Registry and preservation metadata. She explained the effort they took to make better metadata and better display interfaces, including to make metadata more shareable, perform authority control of author names and subjects, create community metadata application profile, customize input forms to allow users to choose from predefined field value (such as department, award statement, interviewee, interviewer and subject), to customize item metadata display, and to repurpose MARC records. As Walsh explains, it is to “add a measure of data control in [their] institutional repository in the interests of both quality metadata and shareable metadata.” Walsh’s valuable and comprehensive experience as well as presentation will be a good reference for other librarians who also work with institutional repositories.

Amy Jackson & Myung-Ja Han, Project Coordinator, IMLS Digital Collections and Content, Metadata Librarian, University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign
Topic: Changes in Interoperability of Dublin Core Metadata Records Over Time
(Presentation slides available at: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/about.asp#Presentations )

The IMLS Digital Collections and Content project (http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/), a collection registry and item-level metadata repository, is an IMLS (the Institute of Museum and Library Services) National Leadership Grant Program (NLG). It began in December 2002, and recently extended to 2010. Currently the collection registry has 180 NLG projects and 15 LSTA (the Library Services and Technology Act) projects, and overall harvested about 310,448 records.

To study sharable metadata quality change over time, the researchers at UIUC did qualitative and quantitative analysis of records harvested from Jan. 1, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2006. Quantitative analysis looked at the use of core fields and the length and repetition of the fields. Qualitative analysis examined the misuse of Dublin Core (DC) fields and the mapping errors. The results of the former analysis shows a decline in the use of all eight core DC fields, in more detail, the most often missing elements are creator and rights, and format and description fields have shown the most significant decline in use since 2003… It is not surprising to find out that “users can only search across all records by searching on the title field”, and in fact, “metadata creators are becoming more discriminating in their use of DC fields in the local context”. The results of the latter analysis displays that the misuse of DC elements is not uncommon (such as the misuse of Date and Coverage fields, Source and Relation fields, Format and Description fields, and Type and Format fields), confusion in descriptive metadata and administrative metadata, and information lost in mapping from local scheme such as MARC to DC.

Based on the analysis, it is concluded that positive changes in metadata practices have not been observed. The researchers recommend that the data providers publicly document crosswalking practices and communities publish local metadata practices. It is also suggested to expose native metadata in addition to DC for the mapping process and to ensure that creators receive appropriate training in creating sharable quality metadata.

Kristin Martin, Electronic Resources Cataloger, Catalog Department, UNC Chapel Hill
Topic: Building a Collection of Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Metadata Issues and Lessons Learned
(Presentation slides are available at: http://library.wichita.edu/techserv/NRMIG/NRMIGpresentation2008-Martin.ppt )

The UNC (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) Libraries provide access to the electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) through both the traditional catalog and CONTENTdm. Starting from May 2008, electronic submission becomes mandatory for the UNC graduate students. The ETD website is at http://dc.lib.unc.edu/etd/index.php?CISOROOT=/etd

Martin gave us an overview of the ETD (Electronic Theses and Dissertations) project at UNC. She discussed metadata used for ETDs, which tried to follow the standards of NDLTD (Networkded Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations), UNC’s local ContentDM data dictionarly and AACR2 and LCRI. As these standards will not always agree, their two major cataloging agencies also showed inconsistency in terms of metadata creation practices. Despite these reality dilemmas, additional challenges exist in the ContentDM software, the workflow, PDF format and the DC-MARC crosswalk implementation. Martin described the transformation process of their expanded version of Dublin Core (in ContentDM) to MARC (for OCLC and local catalog). The main reason they start from ContentDM is that “selected fields can be prepopulated from information provided by the Graduate School,” and “difficulty maintaining consistent URL without beginning in ContentDM”. It is a very sincere sharing of a reality show.