Controlled Vocabulary

One of the topics that I find myself returning to again and again in examining metadata and cataloging is controlled vocabulary. Broadly described by Steven J. Miller in our textbook, Metadata for Digital Collections, controlled vocabulary is "any standardized list of terms that have been selected for consistent use in describing or indexing information resources" (2011, 129). By ensuring the consistent use of terms to describe information objects, a metadata creator can more easily facilitate their retrieval by potential users. While the idea of a controlled vocabulary is nearly synonymous, for librarians, with tools such as LCSH (the Library of Congress Subject Headings), there are a variety of types and forms, including: lists, thesauri, taxonomies, and classification schemes, among others.

Trying to distinguish between the different types of controlled vocabularies can be daunting, even for information professionals, so any resource that can facilitate understanding is greatly appreciated. For those of you interested in learning more about the differences between these various descriptive tools, my LS 566 classmate, Cassandra, recently posted a blog that included a very helpful link, entitled Controlling your Language: A Directory of Metadata Vocabularies. Courtesy of Jisc Digital Media, this guide walks you through the basics of controlled vocabularies, and also describes the important features and uses of the major types that may be encountered. It's a quick read, and definitely worthwhile if you have interest in subject description, so be sure to check it out if you have some time to spare.

Miller, Steven J. 2011. Metadata for digital collections : a how-to-do-it manual / Steven J. Miller. n.p.: New York : Neal-Schuman Publishers, c2011., 2011. University of Alabama Libraries’ Classic Catalog, EBSCOhost (accessed March 11, 2014).

But wait...there's so much more

A little help from Organization Monkey for this entry.

Marie Kennedy, http://orgmonkey.net/?p=266, Jul 13, 2008

One of the real eye-openers for me as part of the SLIS Program at the University of Alabama, and through my LS 566 Metadata class, has been a recognition of the incredible opportunities that await library and information professionals in the Digital Age. Digital archives and records repositories, online libraries, digital image and music collections...the needs for information organization in the online environment are countless. Understanding the principles of information description, and being able to apply them, whether it be to a traditional OPAC catalog, or to any variety of metadata formats, will only become more useful as more and more information migrates into exclusively digital forms. Now, trying to make sure that people see the value in bringing human organization to all that data, and trying to dispel the archaic notion that librarian=person behind desk in building...well, that's another matter.

Metadata Games

There's no question that metadata is around us wherever we go in the digital world. Whether it is the personal information that notes our virtual journey to a site, the administrative metadata embedded onto a webpage, or the descriptive metadata that tells us about a selected informational object, we are adrift in a sea of metadata. Now, it is even there for us when we're ready to unwind and do something fun, in the form of Metadata Games. The product of cooperative efforts from organizations including Dartmouth College's Tiltfactor Game Laboratory, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Council of Learned Societies, Metadata Games provides aspiring metadata creators and taggers the opportunity to help construct real metadata descriptions for real digitally archived material in the form of several pieces of interactive software. By drawing on the elements of crowd-sourcing and mobile gaming, Metadata Games seeks to use the population-at-large to solve the problem of description-less digital collections. It is definitely an interesting idea, though questions about ensuring traditional descriptive practices such as specific-entry and controlled vocabulary certainly abound.

Guidelines for Metadata Creation

Being responsible for metadata creation can be a bit daunting at times, even if many of us are involved in the practice on an almost daily basis. I suppose much of that depends on the context, as when we're doing it during our daily work tasks, or in the comfort of our homes, it's part of an intuitive routine, while as part of a class assignment, it is something that you are definitely going to be assessed on, and you have to make sure it is done correctly. Since practices and requirements for creating metadata can vary wildly from situation to situation, it's good to have some solid guidelines to refer back to every now and again.

My LS 566 classmate, Tamara, recently blogged about some "Practical Principles for Metadata Creation and Maintenance," as passed on by the J. Paul Getty Trust. Though the emphasis of the guidelines seem geared more toward institutional and corporate metadata creation, there is still insight to be gained for all types of metadata creators, and they are definitely worth a look as we begin to approach our imaging project.

Choosing a Digital Repository

In addition to the Digital Imaging project talked about over the last few blogs, I will also be responsible for the presentation of a digital repository in my LS 566 Metadata class. Now there are a ton of really great digital repositories out there across the web, covering a wide variety of subject matter, and differing greatly in the manner in which images are presented and described, so the task of choosing just one can be a little bit overwhelming. Also a consideration is the requirements for our presentation, which include identifying information such as: the metadata schema and content standards utilized, any digitization standards noted, and features like whether the metadata records are included in any online catalogs or aggregators. This means that any "ideal" choice for this assignment will probably include quite a bit of detailed, "under-the-hood" type information on the site itself, or at least be prominent enough that those characteristics would be mentioned by any outside sources discussing the site. So how to go about choosing?

With the aid of a few links from our professor, I was off in search of a good digital image repository. As someone who has an avid interest in history, I was hoping to find something with a distinctly historical bent, maybe with pictures from the Civil War, or a similar era. After a few keyword searches, though, I came up with a collection that sounded fairly intriguing, housing a variety of governmental posters from World War II. The World War II Poster Collection from the Government and Geographic Information and Data Services Department at the Northwestern University Library (isn't that a mouthful?) is a digital collection of over 300 posters issued by various governmental agencies during the period of the second World War that were intended to help maintain the morale and resolve of the American people during that great conflict. I always find it interesting to see the values and priorities that were emphasized in documents from the past, so the process of browsing through this repository has been an interesting experience so far. Also interesting, from a library and information studies perspective, is the integration of the collection's records with the cataloging systems of both Northwestern University, as well as OCLC. Taking a closer look at the mechanics underlying these records, and the makeup of the repository, will be a big part of my assignment going forward, and I will be sure to post my progress in this direction.

If you've never taken a look at World War II posters before, they are definitely an interesting part of Americana, so take a few minutes to browse if you get a chance.

On Subject Description: "Ofness and Aboutness"

One of the major challenges that catalogers and metadata creators confront in subject description is in identifying the intended meaning behind the object being examined. While many books, images, and recordings are relatively straight-forward in the themes and topics they explore, there are also many instances in which the intended meaning of the object is distinctly different that its superficial characteristics. George Orwell's Animal Farm, for instance, is superficially the tale of animal interaction on a fictional farm, though the meaning behind this story is a satire and critique of the Russian Revolution and the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union. In the cataloging and metadata world, these distinctions represent the difference between the "ofness" of a work, and the "aboutness" of a work. Being able to identify both is a key component in ensuring that a bibliographic item is correctly described.

For a slightly different look at this topic, check out this recent post from one of my LS 566 classmates, which examines "ofness" and "aboutness" in the context of a Pablo Picasso painting, as well as some links providing a bit more insight into the subject.

Looking at my assigned Dublin Core elements

Date, Creator, Contributor...these will be the Dublin Core elements that my two groupmates and I will be responsible for as part of our LS 566-Metadata digital imaging assignment. It's a pretty interesting grouping, being fairly straight-forward in the type of information being inputted-there's not a huge amount of room for interpretation as opposed to something like the Subject field. Nevertheless, these are some fields where consistency in data entry will be supremely important, as the lack of uniform dating, or author names, for instance, can really wreak havoc for users of the collection. As part of our first task for the assignment, my group was asked to look at the three elements and to discern whether they would be appropriate, or necessary, for the needs of the collection being described. I've included my brief thoughts below.

Date (Art Images)-This is the element I am personally responsible for, and one that I discussed in a little more depth during an earlier blog post. Date would seem to be an essential metadata element for nearly any collection, and is likely to have multiple uses in the description of digital art images, including: item creation date and the date of digitization, as well as the copyright date. The foremost considerations for using the Date element will be the use of a consistent format for date entries, and the question of how the dates can be best associated with the information they represent. The use of qualifiers or refinements, where possible, should significantly help with the latter.

Creator (Football Images)-The Creator element represents the individual or corporate entity responsible for the creation of the item being described, such as the: author, photographer, or artist. This would also seem to be an obvious element to be utilized in the description of digital images, so long as the specific photographer(s) are known. As with Date, the issue of controlling entry terms to ensure consistency will be one of the important considerations when working with the element. Determining a standard order by which Creator names will be inputted would go a long way toward easing our work with this element.

Contributor (Football Images)-My group struggled with trying to determine the relevance of this element to our project. Commonly used for persons or entities such as illustrators, translators, or anyone responsible for adding to the content being described, Contributor may not be needed when dealing with this collection of digital photographs. It is possible that a person responsible for graphically editing the content of the photos, or perhaps their digitization, could be listed under this element, if their identity is known.

So there is a brief rundown if what I will be working on for the digital imaging project. It should be an interesting experience, and I'm especially looking forward to looking at using some elements that will be requiring a bit of authority control in their entry. Looking forward to hearing about how the rest of the class feels about their assigned elements.