Making sense of the metadata world

Having come into my LIS program from the perspective of an elementary school librarian, I had expected to have my view of the field open up drastically, and learn about concepts I had never been exposed to before. Metadata was one of those concepts, which even for the first year or so of my studies boiled down inside my head to "it's like cataloging, but, not for books, right?" Needless to say, my Metadata class has opened my eyes a great deal as to the versatility of the metadata concept, and the numerous tools, ideas, and structures that are associated with it. But still, for someone who is focusing in on mastering the understanding of Dublin Core elements and their uses, there is a minefield of confusion and frustration as concepts and aspects of metadata pile upon each other in my mind. Schema, descriptive standards, content standards, digitization standards, left-side, right-side, refinements, qualifiers, MODS, MADS, LCSH, EAD, VRA, MeSH...the list goes on and on, with my sometimes overwhelmed brain trying to sort it all out and make sense of it all.

My LS 566 classmate, Michele, has posted an excellent recent blog entitled "Big Picture," which tackles some of the concepts listed above, and helps to break down some of the distinctions between the various types of standards and how they are used, as well as listing some examples of each. I found the post to be extremely helpful in developing and reinforcing my own understanding of many of these various ideas, and would highly recommend giving it a look. As for metadata's adherence to the EHAA (Everything Has An Acronym) standard that similarly bogs down the field of education I currently work in, well, that probably can't be helped. 

Dublin Core: Identifier Element

Though I have already been assigned my personal element for our class Digital Indexing Project, I've felt compelled to spend some extra time browsing through the other DC elements to get a better understanding of what they all do. Possibly one of the more underestimated elements, especially in the digital environment, is the Identifier tag, which contains unique identifying information for a particular resource. There are a wide variety of possible identifiers, including: ISBN numbers, file names, accession numbers, and URLs, and each can help play a role in helping users to locate the exact specific document or resource that they are searching for.

One of the more useful classes of identifiers that may show up in this metadata field are those known as DOIs, or Digital Object Identifiers. To help explain what a DOI does, consider the much experienced-scenario of a user having finally found the information research they've been searching for, and when they click on the link to reach it...Object Not Found HTTP 404. Don't you hate that? To help avoid such frustration, some information resources possess a DOI, which is a unique character string by which the resource can be searched for and found, wherever in the ether of the web it may have moved to. While not all informational objects possess a DOI, the practice is becoming increasingly common, especially with items such as journal articles.

For another take on the Identifier element, head over to my classmate Kasie's blog, where she provides some brief information as well as some helpful links on the topic.

Metadata Survivor

Had a real interesting experience in my Metadata class tonight, as we all made our pitches for why the elements assigned to us should be considered and utilized for the collection. Date, my element, which can cover a wide variety of temporal information related to an object, as discussed in an earlier post, made the cut...as did most of the elements. The notable castaways included Contributor, for which a strong case just could not be made for inclusion, as well as Language. These will likely be replaced by elements covering identification of the responsible indexing or entry person for the metadata, as well as one considering the football players likely to be found in the Bama football images we are describing.

It was intriguing to hear the wide variety of justifications and possible uses for elements provided by my classmates, and was an excellent opportunity to think critically about the importance of specific elements to the description of digital collections. I also found it challenging to consider the ways in considering the employment of elements when using digitized objects versus ones that are born digital, and how that distinction can alter the usefulness of those elements. This has been a very educational project so far, and we're just getting started on it. More to come as we get further along.

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.