Metadata

A Cataloger's Primer

Richard Smiraglia

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136435911
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Find out what makes metadata an exciting addition to resource descriptionMetadata: A Cataloger's Primer provides catalog librarians and students with a comprehensive instructional resource on the ongoing convergence of cataloging and metadata. Equally valuable in the classroom and as a professional reference tool, this unique book serves as an introduction to the concepts of metadata within bibliographic contexts, demonstrating the potential for resource description. The book introduces various metadata schemes, including the Dublin Core, Encoded Archival Description (EAD), and Extensive Markup Language (XML), and discusses how to plan and implement a metadata-driven digital library.Metadata: A Cataloger's Primer is more than a mere introduction to metadata applications and management. The book's contributors present basic operational definitions, an outline of the evolution of metadata in the cataloging community, and a discussion of basic metadata techniques, calling on hard-earned knowledge gained from their experiences as educators working in cataloging and metadata applications. They provide work forms, work plans, and practical examples that demonstrate the application of metadata for resource description and depository development. Metadata: A Cataloger's Primer examines:

• data structures
  
• MODAL (metadata objectives and principles, domains, and architectural layout) framework
  
• literary displacement
  
• knowledge domains
  
• discourse communities
  
• information ecologies
  
• personal metadata
  
• electronic resources
  
• authorship attributes
  
• cultural information resources
  
• instantiation
  
• data modeling
  
• DTD (document type definition)
  
• digital libraries
  
• and much more!

Metadata: A Cataloger's Primer is an invaluable learning resource filled with introductory and theoretical material, original research, and instructive material for cataloging librarians and students.

PART I: INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS

Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes

Jane Greenberg

Jane Greenberg is Associate Professor, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 205 Manning Hall, CB #3360, Chapel Hill, NC (E-mail: [email protected]).

SUMMARY. Although the development and implementation of metadata schemes over the last decade has been extensive, research examining the sum of these activities is limited. This limitation is likely due to the massive scope of the topic. A framework is needed to study the full extent of, and functionalities supported by, metadata schemes. Metadata schemes developed for information resources are analyzed. To begin, the author presents a review of the definition of metadata, metadata functions, and several metadata typologies. Next, a conceptualization for metadata schemes is presented. The emphasis is on semantic container-like metadata schemes (data structures). The last part of this paper introduces the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domains, and Architectural Layout) framework as an approach for studying metadata schemes. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on the value of frameworks for examining metadata schemes, including different types of metadata schemes. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: [1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Information resources, metadata, metadata schemes, data structures, MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domains, and Architectural Layout) framework

INTRODUCTION

Digital repositories have grown at an explosive rate over the last decade due to new information technologies, particularly those supporting World Wide Web (Web) applications. This growth has led to a tremendous increase in the need for data management, an intense interest in metadata in a wide range of communities (e.g., education, government, scientific, business, etc.), and extensive development of metadata schemes. There are hundreds of metadata schemes being used, many of which are in their second, third, or nth iteration. Many specifications developed for information resources have been endorsed by standards bodies. For example, the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 (2003) (hereafter referred to as the Dublin Core) has been formally endorsed as a standard by Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN) as CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) 13874 (http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/informationsocietystandardizationsystem/published+cwas/13874.pdf), the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) as NISO Z39.85-2001 (http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-85.pdf), and most recently the International Standards Organization (ISO) as ISO 15836-2003 (http://www.niso.org/international/SC4/n515.pdf).

An official list of all available metadata schemes does not exist, not even one specific to information resources, although a number of metadata registries are becoming fairly extensive. The CORES registry (http://www.cores-eu.net/registry/) is a good example, currently listing 40 metadata schemes, and supporting searching and browsing by metadata scheme developer, maintenance agency, element sets, elements, encoding schemes, application profiles, and element usages. Additionally, Web resources, such as the IFLA DIGITAL LIBR ARIES: Metadata Resources Web page (http://www.ifla.org/II/metadata.htm) and the UKOLN Metadata Web site (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/), provide ample information about metadata schemes by referencing and linking to papers, presentations, electronic listservs and newsgroups, and metadata specifications. These resources are useful for studying the population of metadata schemes, although it is difficult to study this topic in its entirety, given the multiplicity of schemes, their evolutionary nature (different versions or releases produced over time), their different constituencies, and their varied functional emphases.

Despite these challenges, it is important to conceptualize the nature of metadata schemes. We need to study schemes in order to understand their place in the larger context of information organization, management, and access. The intense interest in, and extensive development of, metadata schemes over the last decade brings this need to the forefront and calls for an examination of the population of these semantic container-like systems. A framework is needed to study the full extent of and functionalities supported by metadata schemes. In this paper I consider this need by examining schemes developed for information resources. The first part is a review of the definition of metadata, metadata functions, and several metadata typologies. Next, I present conceptualization for metadata schemes. The emphasis is on semantic container-like metadata schemes (data structures). The last part of this paper introduces the MODAL (Metadata Objectives and principles, Domain, and Architectural Layout) framework as an approach for studying metadata schemes. The paper concludes with a brief discussion on value of frameworks for examining metadata schemes, including different types of metadata schemes.

METADATA AND METADATA SUPPORTED FUNCTIONS

Defining Metadata

It is well documented that Jack E. Myers coined the term “metadata” in 1969, and it was first printed in a product brochure in 1973. Meyers used the term to represent current and future products associated with his MetaModel and to designate a company that would develop and market those products. METADATA® was registered in 1986 as a U.S. Trademark for The Metadata Company, where Meyers is a principle (The Metadata Company: http://www.metadata.com/).

Building upon Meyer’s usage, the terms metadata, meta data and meta-data (all in lower case) have been adopted by the computer science, statistical, database, and library and information science communities to mean “data about data.” The term metadata, in these realms, addresses data attributes that describe, provide context, indicate the quality, or document other object (or data) characteristics.

Information and library scientists both equate (e.g., Milstead & Feldman, 1999; Caplan, 1995) and distinguish (e.g., Heery, 1996) creating metadata from cataloging. The main distinction is that metadata is exclusive to electronic information. This interpretation is, however, not hard-and-fast, as librarians have been cataloging electronic resources for decades prior to the Web, and many metadata schemes are applicable to physical as well as digital resources. Definitions of metadata specific to information resources (the types of materials found in both physical and digital libraries, archives, museums, and other information agencies) are consistent in that they emphasize the functional aspect of metadata, with the common definition of “structured data about data” (e.g., Duval et al. 2002; Woodley et al. 2003). Metadata can be viewed as “structured data about an object that supports functions associated with the designated object”–with an object being “any entity, form, or mode for which contextual data can be recorded” (Greenberg, 2003).

Metadata Functions

Many discussions, particularly those exploring metadata in the information resource community (libraries, archives, museums, and other information centers), tend to group metadata elements by the various functions they support. The result is the identification of different types of metadata (or metadata classes), each of which comprises multiple metadata elements. Table 1 provides typologies of different types of metadata identified by Lagoze et al. (1996), Gilliland-Swetland (2000), Greenberg (2001), and Caplan (2003).

Lagoze et al. have developed one of the most extensive typologies, presented in Table 1, columns one through three. Column one summarizes the Lagoze et al. typology, column 2 describes the metadata functions corresponding to the typology, and column three lists examples of metadata elements that facilitate the functions in column 2.

Gilliland-Swetland’s (2000), Greenberg’s (2001), and Caplan’s (2003) typologies are presented in Table 1, columns four, five, and six respectively; and these typologies are mapped to the functions identified by Lagoze et al. (column 2). The typologies developed by these three authors (Gilliland-Swetland, Greenberg, and Caplan) are not as extensive as the Lagoze et al. typology and definitions vary among authors. As a result, metadata types are repeated in the mapping, and often more than one type is listed to match the Lagoze et al. metadata functions.

TABLE 1. Metadata Typologies and Functionalities

*Individual metadata elements can be multi-functional. For example, “source” metadata facilitates resource authentication and resource linking, and can be classed as both “Provenance metadata” and “Linkage/relationship metadata” following Lagoze et al.’s typology (for a discussion on metadata element multifunctionality see Greenberg, J. (2001)).

Table 1 illustrates similarities among metadata typologies, yet it also makes evident the challenge in establishing one universal metadata classification. Most important is that the naming of different types of metadata, with labels such as “resource discovery” and “use,” demonstrates that functionality is the principal reason for metadata.

A CONCEPTUALIZATION FOR METADATA SCHEMES

A Context for Metadata Schemes

While literature includes analyses on the different types of metadata, discussions on the meaning of scheme (or schema), in the metadata context, are scarce. It may simply be that “scheme” is generally understood to be “a structured framework or plan” (Miriam-Webster Online: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=schema), and adopting this concept for representation systems used in information databases seems very reasonable. The term scheme has historically been applied to classificatory and terminological systems used in library catalogs and other information databases, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH); this practice continues with little debate-if any. Here I focus on the semantic container-like schemes, also referred to as data structures. These are the higher-level structured schemes that may require or recommend the use of schemes containing acceptable data values (e.g., DDC or LCSH).

The philosopher Kant provides insight into the meaning of scheme in his 1785 treatise Critique of Pure Reason (1998). Kant reasons that a schema is a system based on experience and the gathering of empirical data. Kant’s model, emphasizing experience and empirical analysis, is applicable to developments underlying metadata schemes today. The experience aspect is evident via expert collaboration during scheme design activities. Subject discipline experts and technical experts, in areas such as electronic markup, thesaurus development, representation, and data processing, frequently join forces through committees or designated initiatives to design a metadata scheme. These committees and initiatives can be locally, nationally, or internationally positioned. For example, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is an international and interdisciplinary group that has developed and maintains the Dublin Core through committee consensus. Metadata scheme designers, working together, draw upon experience gained in their areas of expertise.

Referring back to Kant’s model, the empirical aspect of scheme design is evident mainly through the counting of metadata elements, sub-elements, qualifiers, and other components. Nascent metadata scheme design can be guided by a pre-determined number of elements, dictating the scheme’s extent and often granularity (refinement). This restriction requires element counting during the design process. The empirical aspect of metadata scheme design is also evident in analyses of pre-existing metadata schemes-even those developed during the pre-digital era. The crosswalk analysis, a common analytical method, often employed as a first step to scheme design, is heavily empirical (e.g., Woodley, 2000; Zeng, 1997). Equivalent or similarly functioning metadata elements from two or more metadata schemes are mapped to one another via a table that allows for an element-level detailed comparison among schemes. Other empirical methods include counting how many institutions or initiatives have adopted a scheme; counting the number of metadata elements being used (or not used) in a particular scheme; and analyzing the strength of the relationship among metadata elements (e.g., Moen and Benardino, 2003).

The “conceptualization” of a metadata scheme is generally “formalized in a specification” (Greenberg, 2003), and there are standards to guide this process. Arguably, the most important standard guiding this process is ISO/IEC (International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission) 11179, Metadata Registries Standard, developed by ISO/IEC JTC1 SC32 WG2 Development/Maintenance (http://metadata-stds.Org/11179/). The standard has six parts: (1) Framework, (2) Classification, (3) Registry Metamodel and Basic Attributes, (4) Formulation of Data Definitions, (5) Naming and Identification Principles, and (6) Registration. The standard includes extensive instructions on how to identify data elements and register a scheme with a registration authority. ISO/IEC 11179 is essential for the database community, and has been a vital resource for the development of metadata schemes for digital resources. Part 1 and Part 4 of ISO/IEC 1179 appear to be the most important sections for metadata scheme development. Part 1 “introduces and discusses fundamental ideas of data elements, value domains, data element concepts, conceptual domains, and classification schemes,” and Part 4 “provides guidance on how to develop unambiguous data definitions.” Additional standards guiding metadata scheme development include ISO/IEC 20943, Procedures for Achieving Metadata Registry Content Consistency; ISO/IEC 20944, Metadata Registry Interoperability and Bindings; and ISO/IEC 18038, Identification and Mapping of Various Categories of Jurisdictional Domains (see http://metadata-stds.org/).

Metadata Scheme Conceptualized

Exploring the meaning of “scheme,” including referencing ISO/IEC 11179, and reviewing metadata functionalities aid in conceptualizing what a metadata scheme is. Described as “a systematic, orderly combination of elements or terms” (Woodley et al., 2003) and “a set of metadata elements and rules for their uses that has been defined for a particular purpose” (Caplan, 2003), literature does not reveal a universally accepted definition for metadata scheme-unlike the standard definition of “data about data” for metadata. A metadata scheme can, however, be identified by three main features. A metadata scheme is:

1. A collection of metadata elements gathered to support a function, or a series of functions (e.g., resource discovery, administration...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the Editor
• Introducing Metadata
• Part I: Intellectual Foundations
• Part II: How to Create, Apply, and Use Metadata
• Index