LIS 688 METADATA Kyle Butler April 24, 2012 METADATA STANDARDS AND DUBLIN CORE I: Introduction

The term Metadata is one that holds many different meanings. Within the Library and Information Studies community, it has been accepted for many years to mean data about other data. Metadata is needed in order for individuals to describe and organize electronic and web resources, so they could effectively retrieve them in the future. In order to ward off potential issues with classifying and describing items, the information community uses a series of accepted metadata standards.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a literature review on works that discuss metadata standards, with a particular focus on Dublin Core. In the search to find scholarly articles on metadata standards and Dublin Core, it seemed as though the literature could be divided into a pair of categories: those which focus on the general aspects of metadata, and those that provide more in-depth studies geared towards an audience with a greater grasp of the subject at hand. A number of sources deliver a broad picture of what standards actually are, define the various terms, and are suited for people who are trying to gain a basic understanding of metadata.

1|Page

II: Introducing Metadata Standards

According to authors Marcia Lei Zeng and Jian Qin, metadata standards are named element sets and/or schemas that have been approved by a national or international standard body, a community, or a professional association. (Zeng, 2008) There are various types of metadata standards, including: Data Structure Standards, Data Content Standards, Data Value Standards, and Data Exchange Standards. Metadata standards were devised as a means of fixing issues regarding resource description and discovery problems. Essentially, they provide a way for people to organize information and make it accessible. They also enable people to share information with other users and electronic information repositories.

The creation of metadata standards remains a relatively recent invention. There are several different types of metadata standards, all of which have been developed in the past two decades. Dublin Core was the first such standard developed in 1995, but many others followed, including Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA). Though each standard has its own unique set of characteristics, they all function through a series of elements, which serve as a means of describing the various properties of an object or resource.

III: Metadata Standards Sources

2|Page

One of the better resources that presents an introduction to metadata and its standards can be found in a booklet entitled Understanding Metadata (National Information Standards Organization, 2004). A revision of Metadata Made Simpler: A Guide to Libraries, this free guide begins by defining what metadata actually is, its importance to cataloging, and how it is structured. The guide proceeds to delve into descriptions of the major metadata standards, including EAD, MODS, VRA, as well as Dublin Core. The guide also contains a sample Dublin Core entry so that readers can see firsthand examples of how one would fill the majority of DCs 15 element fields. Perhaps this resources greatest attribute, however, is a list of related sources on metadata, ranging from General Sources to Schemas to Crosswalks, along with a handy glossary of terms. The booklet is published by NISO, which identifies, develops, and maintains technical standards in a constantly changing digital market.

Another good, and slightly more recent source when it comes to providing information about metadata standards in a general sense is Metadata Standards and Applications (Hillmann, 2008). This report published in Serials Librarian is interesting in that it divides metadata standards into five distinct categories. First, there is Administrative Metadata, focusing on who created the data, when it was created, and whether or not a source has been recently updated and/or approved. Descriptive Metadata centers on general information that traditional catalogers understand, including Title, Author, Subject, Format, and Relation. A third category, Access/Use
3|Page

Metadata is basically self-explanatory, containing information about rights and management. Preservation Metadata is designed to ensure access to information is maintained over a lengthy period of time. Hillmann and her co-authors argue that the digital world is dynamic and constantly changing, and that preservation metadata must be able to handle these updates. Finally, Structural Metadata relates files to each other. While this source does not go into as much detail about the individual standards, choosing to focus on Dublin Core and MODS, it does provide a great review of metadata as a whole and argues that while some librarians may be resistant to changes, change is already here, and accepting metadata standards is essential in order to effectively organize information in the digital age.

Metadata For Digital Collections: A How-To-Do-It Manual (Miller, 2011) is one of the few books I encountered, and is also one of the most recent sources available that touches on metadata-related information. Like the previous publications, Miller gives a general overview of what metadata is and introduces readers to some of the metadata standards, namely Dublin Core and MODS. However, unlike the other sources, this book delves into the world of Visual Resources Association Core Categories. Additionally, Miller discusses controlled vocabularies for improved resource discovery, and, as the title would indicate, spends the most time on metadata for digital collections.

4|Page

While the aforementioned resources tend to deliver more general accounts of the various standards and of metadata itself, there are also several articles and publications that have a much narrower focus devoted towards Metadata standards. One such source appeared in Library Technology Reports, fittingly entitled Metadata Standards. Though the work is somewhat dated, having been published in 2002, it nevertheless serves as a unique source. While Hillman broke down metadata standards into five different categories, this report goes a step further, subdividing the standards into six areas. The first area consists of General Metadata Standards, which are the most common and widely accepted standards to date, and include Dublin Core, EAD, and MODS. The second area; Transportation Models, assists in the interoperability, transfer, and transport of information among standards, and include Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Extensive Markup Language (XML). Next are Educational Metadata Standards, which exist in order to teach both professors and educators to utilize the electronic environment as a learning tool. The fourth area features Media Specific standards, covering the various types of media in electronic form, a list which includes music, art, audio, and streaming video. Preservation Metadata Standards manage and keep digital objects for generations to come, through standards such as the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) and the Open Archival Information System (OAIS). Last but not least, Rights Metadata Standards deal with the issues of copyrighting digital items, and these work in tandem with some of the other
5|Page

previously listed groups. This report effectively breaks down each of the standards, expresses their benefits, as well as dictating their potential for future projects.

Another of the journal articles encountered in researching literature on metadata standards appeared in Library Technology Reports. (Eden, 2005). This report discusses the various standards with a major emphasis on recent efforts by the Library of Congress to develop new metadata standards as well as crosswalks. The article concluded in a report on the stability and development of current standards that the widespread use of the MARC format for the exchange of bibliographic information and for managing library operations will not change for the foreseeable future. However, many limitations of MARC, like lack of scalability to digital materials are not listed in that report. In comparison to the other resources, this report is far more technical but should be of benefit to metadata professionals in the field.

One final source about metadata standards is Alexanders article on Core Cataloging and Metadata Standards and Best Practices. (Alexander, 2008) She begins by identifying the different standards, covering the likes of Dublin Core, XML, MODS, and EAD, and covers examples of mixing schemas. The core standards are identified with an emphasis on science and technology disciplines, but can still be useful for librarians in all fields. The article is designed to assist librarians who will implement

6|Page

these practices or will advocate the needs of the library and information science profession.

IV: Introducing Dublin Core

There is no shortage of options when it comes to selecting a particular metadata standard. From EAD to VRA to MODS to CDWA, lots of standards have been created over the past two decades as means of describing, sharing, and organizing resources. However, the first and arguably most famous standard remains Dublin Core (DC). Created in 1995, the Dublin Core is a metadata standard used to supplement existing methods for searching and indexing web-based metadata, and can be utilized regardless of whether a resource in question is an electronic document or a real tangible object. Dublin Core originally consisted of a set of 13 descriptive definitions, before being expanded to 15 elements. The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) is a core set of elements shared across disciplines or within an organization needing to organize and classify information. These elements include Contributor, Coverage, Creator, Date, Description, Format, Identifier, Language, Publisher, Relation, Rights, Source, Subject, Title, and Type. Each element comes with a specific definition so users are clear what sort of information fits within the element.

Nearly twenty years after its creation, Dublin Core remains an enormously popular choice compared to other metadata standards. There are numerous benefits to

7|Page

using the Dublin Core standard. A great deal of Dublin Cores popularity derives from the fact that it remains a relatively simple metadata standard, and can easily be used by people who may not be experts in the field of metadata. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative promotes this fact, pointing out that anyone can use the DC metadata to describe the resources of an information system. Additionally, many digital archives of physical objects have started to make use of Dublin Core over the past several years. Also, Dublin Core Metadata is used by a variety of groups; an impressive list that includes not only libraries, but educational organizations, governmental institutions, businesses, corporations, and by the scientific research sector.

V: Dublin Core Sources

As was the case with the works on metadata standards, the sources on Dublin Core range from basic articles that deliver a general overview of the DC standard to more complex articles better geared towards professionals in the field. One of the best pieces of literature on Dublin Core that can be utilized by just about anybody is A Grammar of Dublin Core (Baker, 2000). Though the source is slightly older than some of the others on the topic, it still stands as one of the best introductory guides to Dublin Core for individuals who are first learning about metadata standards. In this guide, Baker points out that while some would describe Dublin Core as a type of modern-day card catalog or exchange format, he argues that DC should really be considered an

8|Page

actual language for making statements about particular types of resources. He then delves into the subjects of elements, qualifiers, and issues surrounding Dublin Core. Again, though the source is slightly dated and the world of metadata standards has been altered dramatically since its publication, this guide is still a great tool for introducing the basics of Dublin Core and explaining its importance to metadata and classification.

Twelve years after authoring a guide on the basics of Dublin Core, Baker also authored another work on DC, entitled Libraries, Languages of Description, and Linked Data: A Dublin Core Perspective. (Baker, 2012) This resource is considerably more technical than Bakers previous work. The article focuses on how the Dublin Core which was originally seen as a simplified record format, came increasingly to be seen as an RDF vocabulary for use in metadata based on a statement model, and how new approaches to metadata evolved to bridge the gap between these models. Baker also examines how Dublin Core issues also exemplify problems that must be fixed in order to ensure that library data remains compatible with other data sources, while still meeting quality and consistency standards.

Another solid source that takes a look at Dublin Core and application profiles is an article published in Library Trends, Describing Scholarly Works with Dublin Core: A Functional Approach (Allinson, 2008). This article discusses how the Scholarly

9|Page

Works Application Profile (SWAP) was developed. SWAP is a Dublin Core application profile for describing scholarly texts. In this article, Allinson also talks about how the Dublin Core Metadata Initiatives Singapore Framework functions, by incorporating the various elements of Application Profile building as defined by this framework. Its a source definitely geared towards people already well-versed in the subjects of metadata and Dublin Core. A final source is an analysis from Information Technology and Libraries. Dublin Core, DSpace, and a Brief Analysis of Three University Repositories. (Kurtz, 2010). Kurtz provides an overview of Dublin Core, including an explanation of its foundation as well as the elements before delving into DSpace. She writes that DSpace simplifies the metadata markup process by using terminology that is different from DC standards. However, while examining the institutional repositories of three universities: University of Washington, New Mexico University, and Ohio State University, he discovers that when DSpace is utilized there are several consistency issues and some records are abysmal. She concludes that librarian intervention during the record-creation process is an improvement over self-archiving. This source isnt terribly technical, but still better suited for those with metadata expertise.

10 | P a g e

VI: Conclusion

It was clear at an early stage of the research process that I was finding two types of literature on metadata standards and DC: general sources for people new to the topic, and more specific sources for experts in the field. I tried to ensure that both types of literature were well represented in this review. The information community consists of people who are well-versed in metadata, and those who may not be as familiar with metadata and its characteristics. However, there is no question that metadata standards are here to stay, and they will only be increasing in importance as time passes. Many librarians and information specialists will have to become at least somewhat familiar with how metadata operates. Fortunately, there are many solid articles and reports out there that can assist them in understanding a subject that plays a major role in how information is organized and accessed.

11 | P a g e

WORKS CITED

Alexander, Mary S. (2008) Core Cataloging and Metadata Standards and Best Practices. University of Alabama Libraries.

Allinson, June. (2008). Describing Scholarly Works with Dublin Core: A Functional Approach. Library Trends, 57, (2): 221-243.

Baker, Thomas (2000). A Grammar of Dublin Core D-Lib Magazine, 6 (10). Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html

Baker, Thomas. (2012). Libraries, Languages of Description, and Linked Data: A Dublin Core Perspective. Library Hi-Tech, 30 (1) 116-133.

Eden, Brad. Library Technology Reports, (2005), 41 (6), 20-33.

Hillmann, D.I., Marker, R., & Brady, C. (May 2008). Metadata Standards and Applications. Serials Librarian, 54 (1) 7-21.

Kurtz, Mary. (2010). Dublin Core, DSpace, and a Brief Analysis of Three University Repositories. Information Technology and Libraries, Chicago: Library and Information Technology Association, 29, (1): 40-46

Metadata Standards. (2002) Library Technology Reports 38 (5) 19-60.

12 | P a g e

Miller, Steven J. (2011). Metadata for Digital Collections: A How-To-Do-It Manual. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

National Information Standards Organization (2004). Understanding Metadata. Bethesda, Md: NISO Press.

Zeng, M.L. & Qin, J. (2008) Metadata. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, p. 322.

13 | P a g e