Metadata Committee
Report to Library Council
--draft--
April 5, 2009
- Current Committee Charge
- Address major policy issues related to the creation and management of metadata in the libraries and, as appropriate, within University applications; create project teams as needed to address more detailed concerns related to fields, tags, indexing, or specific metadata content or characteristics
- Build and maintain knowledge about the various XML-based metadata formats and help other staff gain expertise in these formats
- Coordinate the library's services related to metadata support, both for its internal projects and as these services are offered campus wide
- Establish system-wide standards and practices for metadata, including Acorn
- Identify existing or potential research projects, collections, or databases in the library and on campus that would benefit from metadata support and develop an infrastructure to provide that support
- Create among library staff a set of metadata professionals with a basic knowledge of modern non-MARC metadata formats as well as expertise in the use of Acorn
- Develop a philosophy regarding the library catalog, its function and content. Consider its changing purpose in a changing environment and plan for the future of bibliographic access to library resources
- Review and prioritize customization requests for Acorn and other metadata products as they relate to both the content and the search interface
- Conduct quarterly forums for all cataloging and metadata stakeholders to communicate current developments and decisions and gather input
- Develop methodologies for assessment of library services and for improvement of service quality.
- Key Accomplishments
- Increased our familiarity with non-MARC metadata schemas. The committee has initially focused on ensuring that its own members are knowledgeable in a wide range of metadata formats that will be relevant to library projects going forward. There is deep expertise in MARC throughout the groups in the library that perform cataloging. We aim for similar levels of experience with Dublin Core, METS, MODS and other formats that will be needed for future digital library initiatives. Steven Nordstrom gave the committee an overview of XML; Marshall discussed METS; some of the above accomplishments involved other schemas as well.
- Standardize our use of Dublin Core. We see that Dublin Core will be a strategic metadata format for new projects. Existing projects including DiscoverLibrary, DiscoverArchive rely on it. In order to ensure that all projects follow a consistent use of Dublin Core, we see the need to develop application profiles that specify how each project interprets the use of each of the fields within qualified and unqualified Dublin Core. To meet this objective, the Metadata Committee reviewed and approved the report of the VU E-Archive [now DiscoverArchive] Application Profile project team. The Dublin Core Application Profile was completed in August 2007 and revised in February 2009. This application profile can be used as a model for other applications. A new resource, “Who Speaks for the Negro” was developed using Dublin Core as its metadata format. Pete Wilson was charged with drafting the application of Dublin Core to this new resource. The Metadata Committee reviewed and approved Pete Wilson’s proposed metadata structure for the Who Speaks for the Negro interview database.
- Acorn Operational Issues. As the largest repository of metadata in the library, Acorn continues to warrant attention. The Metadata Committee organized an informal subgroup to deal with problems and issues involving Acorn. The group will report to the Committee as issues arise that require attention. The Metadata Committee will assess and resolve issues internally when possible and will forward issues that require action by external groups, such as LITS or Library Council. The Committee approved of a solution devised by the Acorn subgroup to make call numbers for serials less confusing in WebCat results list displays (now implemented).
- DiscoverLibrary introduces new opportunities to make use of metadata created in individual resources such as Acorn. As we create metadata, we now need to think more broadly about how it will be used in a variety of contexts. One example involves records created for Vanderbilt theses and dissertations. These records are created in Acorn and harvested into DiscoverLibrary. The Metadata Committee recommended a change in cataloging procedure to add abstracts to Acorn records for electronic theses and dissertations to take advantage of the search and display features of DiscoverLibrary.
- DiscoverArchive has provided a key opportunity for catalogers to work with Dublin Core. Initially, Special Collections has made a commitment to the Vanderbilt News Service to archive all podcasts published through iTunes U with the catalogers reviewing and enhancing this metadata. The Metadata Committee discussed a variety of issues related to the way that this metadata would be applied for the podcasts in DiscoverArchive. Catalogers in Technical Services are now routinely review and enhance metadata for many submissions as well as being regularly consulted on all DiscoverArchive metadata issues. Initially, they were using the full Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) as subject descriptor. The Metadata Committee recommended the use of the Faceted Approach to Subject Terminology (FAST) since it will be friendlier to environments such as DiscoverLibrary that rely on facets to narrow search results. Full LSCH headings can be unwieldy in these environments.
- Local versus National cataloging. One of the key issues involving metadata involves what work should be performed locally in Acorn and what should be done on national utilities such as OCLC WorldCat. As more discovery takes place through WorldCat, the Committee sees it as a priority that as much cataloging be done at the national level in OCLC. Cataloging performed locally introduces inconsistencies between records in Acorn and OCLC. Zora Breeding drafted an Acorn cataloging policy emphasizing cataloging work at the national level. The need to enhance records in OCLC, as well as creating original records, was a recurring topic of discussion. The policy was meant to help change the fact that different departments and even different catalogers take different approaches to working at a national level.
- Digital Object Identifiers. One operational issue with Acorn involves the way that URLs are coded in 856 fields. In order to help ensure the persistence of these links as the linking syntax in individual publisher’s servers change, the committee recommended the use of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) instead of hard-coded publisher-specific URLs in Acorn records when they exist. The committee also tasked itself with further study regarding DOIs.
- Marshall Breeding took over as our new chair in October 2007. Roberta Winjum will continue as a committee member.
- Ongoing Action Items
- Managing Acorn Problems. In order to better manage the pending issues involving Acorn, the Metadata committee discussed the possibility of producing a list of items reported to LITS that have been completed. This would be a useful tool as catalogers work with Acorn so that they will be aware of what problems have been resolved and which are known to still be pending.
- Enhance Cataloging. Consistent with our resolution to perform more cataloging at the national level rather than locally, we see the need to be authorized by OCLC to enhance records of all types. We currently do not have any cataloger that has been authorized by OCLC to enhance records for sound recording and visual materials formats. Our first application for enhance status for visual materials format was not approved. The committee plans to address the issue of gaining enhance status for sound recording and visual formats, and other areas that will allow us to perform more national-level cataloging.
- Synchronizing Acorn with WorldCat. We discussed problems of synchronization between our holdings on OCLC and Acorn—whether we have our symbol on all the records it should be on—and a somewhat related problem of what records we may have in Acorn for government documents which we actually do not possess. Other groups within the library have been discussing these and similar issues. We proposed creating a sample of our Acorn records, to be checked against OCLC to see how many of the corresponding OCLC records do not show us as a holding library; this has not yet been done. This synchronization will be part of the OCLC reclamation project that the Collections Committee has proposed. We discussed whether to purchase MARC records or get free Dublin Core records for the Congressional Serial Set, as well as whether the records we get should be in Acorn or in a separate database funneled into DiscoverLibrary. We decided to start by getting some sample Dublin Core records and attempting to load them into DiscoverLibrary. We have only very recently received the sample records. The committee discussed and endorsed the inclusion in DiscoverLibrary of additional digital resources, such as the VU e-Archive and Congressional Serial Set records.
- Discussion TopicsThe committee has been discussing a number of issues internally for its own education and consideration that have not yet resulted in specific action items. We see these issues of having long-term implications for the way that the Vanderbilt Libraries approach metadata and cataloging, but that do not yet have an operational impact.
- Report of the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control: We followed this group’s progress through their meetings and interim reports into their final report, as well as Thomas Mann’s dissenting opinions. We discussed at numerous meetings the impact the report’s recommendations would have on our work as well as the library world in general.
- Resource Description and Access (RDA) has been developed as the successor to AACR2 and will be applied to both MARC21 and Dublin Core. The Metadata Committee has been following RDA with considerable interest. At the national level, interest in RDA has been tentative. The Library of Congress initially decided against implementation, but is now involved in rounds of testing that will eventually result in a final decision on whether to adopt it. The transition to RDA, if it happens, is still several years in the future, but we feel that it is the Metadata Committee’s responsibility to follow the issue and ensure that the library is prepared for it if and when it becomes standard practice for national cataloging. It is especially relevant since it impacts both Acorn and Dublin Core based repositories. We discussed more than once it’s somewhat rocky progress and how it will affect us when/if it begins to be used. Any discussion of RDA also includes discussion of FRBR.
- NIH Mandate. One discussion centered on whether a National Institutes of Health policy to require the submission of federally funded research into PubMed as an open access repository would hava a major impact on ETDs produced with NIH funding. The committee determined it would not have an immediate impact, but this is an issue that we will continue to follow.
- Digital Projects. The metadata committee takes an active interest in any new digital projects underway in the library and hopes to proactively address any metadata issues that arise.
- Unicode. As the library becomes more involved in East Asian languages and others that use non-roman script, search and display of these records increases in importance. The Metadata Committee takes an active interest in how Unicode will be implemented in Acorn, DiscoverLibrary, and other repositories
- References
Various reports and responses of the LC Working group on the Future of Bibliographic Control:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/
Thomas Mann’s responses to various drafts of the above:
http://www.guild2910.org/WorkingGrpResponse2008.pdf
http://guild2910.orgPelopponesian%20War%20June%2013%202007.pdf
And a LITA blog by Dianne Hillmann, "Structures and Standards for Bibliographic Data" (2 parts)
Hillmann part 1: http://tinyurl.com/2gscmc
Hillmann part 2: http://tinyurl.com/2eso6z
METS
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/
NIH public access policy
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm - short version
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html - long version
Digital Object Identifiers (DOI)
http://www.doi.org/
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier
Library of Congress Subject Headings: Pre- vs. Post-Coordination and Related Issues
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pre_vs_post.html
VU e-Archive's documentation
http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/dspace/application_profile
DiscoverArchive Dublin Core Application Profile:
http://discoverarchive.vanderbilt.edu/handle/1803/2365
Visual Resources Association (VRA) core standards
http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/index.htmlAssessment
The Metadata Committee has focused most of its attention internally. We have educated ourselves in forward-looking approaches to metadata. The committee has not been as active in permeating this knowledge beyond its own ranks.
The committee has given positive support to strategic library projects such as DiscoverLibrary and Discover Archive. The committee has provided assistance, especially through the group led by Mary Charles Lasater, in providing in-depth expertise to the issue of mapping resources into DiscoverLibrary.
The committee has also provided positive input regarding the way that Dublin Core is applied within DiscoverArchive.
We anticipate major shifts in the future in the way that libraries apply metadata to their collections. We hope that we have seen some success in preparing those involved with cataloging to think beyond traditional approaches.