All in all, major initiatives are currently being taken to enhance interoperability among the various metadata schemas. Interoperability is a major issue, especially among digital collections, since metadata tends to be stored for use only by the institution that creates and maintains it. Thus, the driving force behind the development of metadata standards in the future will most likely be a desire for uniform access methodology across collections (Smiraglia, 2005). Union catalogs, cross-system searches, crosswalks, and metadata registries each attempt to address and overcome the prevalent barriers to semantic and/or syntactic interoperability. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that some degree of inconsistency or discrepancy shall continue to exist due to the very nature of different institutions creating and using different schemas. As for now, there is still no “one size fits all” universal bibliographic control (Younger, 1997).
References:
Smiraglia, R.P. (Ed.). (2005). Metadata: A cataloger’s primer. New York: The Haworth Information Press.
Younger, J. A. (1997). Resources description in the digital age. Library Trends, 45(3), 462-488. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from InfoTrac OneFile database.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Metadata Registries
Metadata registries have also facilitated interoperability among schemas in that they record authoritative information about metadata elements from multiple sources. A metadata registry is a “…database used to organize, store, manage, and share metadata schemas. [They] provide information about metadata schemas, elements, profiles, definitions, and relationships, using a standard structure” (Taylor, 2004, p.153).
Thus, metadata registries facilitate interoperability since they provide a record of names, definitions, and properties of metadata elements. Metadata creators can consult a registry to clarify meaning and usage as well as exchange information. Additionally, metadata registries can help prevent duplication of effort (Taylor, 2004).
The Dublic Core Metadata Registry Lite is one example of a metadata registry, available at http://wip.dublincore.org/dcregistrylt/
References:
Taylor, A.G. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.
Thus, metadata registries facilitate interoperability since they provide a record of names, definitions, and properties of metadata elements. Metadata creators can consult a registry to clarify meaning and usage as well as exchange information. Additionally, metadata registries can help prevent duplication of effort (Taylor, 2004).
The Dublic Core Metadata Registry Lite is one example of a metadata registry, available at http://wip.dublincore.org/dcregistrylt/
References:
Taylor, A.G. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Crosswalks
Interoperability, particularly semantic interoperability, can also be facilitated through the use of crosswalks, which are authoritative mappings of metadata elements from one schema to another (Caplan, 2003). By analyzing the metadata elements in separate schemas and correlating the similar fields, metadata creators can “map” the equivalent relationships between the schemas. Thus, crosswalks are the “maps” that show these relationships (Woodley, 2000). Crosswalks are most useful when the schemas are relatively simple, are for similar communities or types of materials, and have overlapping concepts. Mapping becomes much more difficult when it involves cross-domains, schemas of different complexities, and schemas with great semantic differences (Taylor, 2004).
Crosswalks are primarily used as a basis for specifications of the physical conversions of records from one metadata schema to another with regards to record exchange. However, since crosswalks only provide lateral or one-way mapping from one schema to another, separate crosswalks are required to map from schema A to schema B and then from schema B to schema A. As a result, some information can become distorted or lost among pairs of crosswalks. This means that the information retrieved after a reversion may not be identical to the original (Taylor, 2004).
The Library of Congress provides a good example of the MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk, which is available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc2dc.html.
References:
Caplan, P. (2003). Metadata fundamentals for all libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.
Taylor, A.G. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.
Woodley, M.S. (2000). Crosswalks: The path to universal access? In Introduction to metadata: Pathways to digital information. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://www.getty.edu/
Crosswalks are primarily used as a basis for specifications of the physical conversions of records from one metadata schema to another with regards to record exchange. However, since crosswalks only provide lateral or one-way mapping from one schema to another, separate crosswalks are required to map from schema A to schema B and then from schema B to schema A. As a result, some information can become distorted or lost among pairs of crosswalks. This means that the information retrieved after a reversion may not be identical to the original (Taylor, 2004).
The Library of Congress provides a good example of the MARC to Dublin Core Crosswalk, which is available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc2dc.html.
References:
Caplan, P. (2003). Metadata fundamentals for all libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.
Taylor, A.G. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.
Woodley, M.S. (2000). Crosswalks: The path to universal access? In Introduction to metadata: Pathways to digital information. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://www.getty.edu/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
