CA Problems in implementing metadata for online resource discovery, in this case for digital libraries, will not be solved simply by adopting a common schema. Intellectual property rights remain another major obstacle to be dealt with.
Phrases
RQ Under what circumstances can metadata be altered? How should the copyright information of a resource be distinguished from the copyright information of its metadata? Will an audit trail be used as metadata shared with other repositories?
Type
Electronic Journal
Title
A Spectrum of Interoperability: The Site for Science Prototype for the NSDL
"Currently, NSF is funding 64 projects, each making its own contribution to the library, with a total annual budget of about $24 million. Many projects are building collections; others are developing services; a few are carrying out targeted research.The NSDL is a broad program to build a digital library for education in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. It is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Undergraduate Education. . . . The Core Integration task is to ensure that the NSDL is a single coherent library, not simply a set of unrelated activities. In summer 2000, the NSF funded six Core Integration demonstration projects, each lasting a year. One of these grants was to Cornell University and our demonstration is known as Site for Science. It is at http://www.siteforscience.org/ [Site for Science]. In late 2001, the NSF consolidated the Core Integration funding into a single grant for the production release of the NSDL. This grant was made to a collaboration of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Columbia University and Cornell University. The technical approach being followed is based heavily on our experience with Site for Science. Therefore this article is both a description of the strategy for interoperability that was developed for Site for Science and an introduction to the architecture being used by the NSDL production team."
ISBN
1082-9873
Critical Arguements
CA "[T]his article is both a description of the strategy for interoperability that was developed for the [Cornell University's NSF-funded] Site for Science and an introduction to the architecture being used by the NSDL production team."
Phrases
<P1> The grand vision is that the NSDL become a comprehensive library of every digital resource that could conceivably be of value to any aspect of education in any branch of science and engineering, both defined very broadly. <P2> Interoperability among heterogeneous collections is a central theme of the Core Integration. The potential collections have a wide variety of data types, metadata standards, protocols, authentication schemes, and business models. <P3> The goal of interoperability is to build coherent services for users, from components that are technically different and managed by different organizations. This requires agreements to cooperate at three levels: technical, content and organizational. <P4> Much of the research of the authors of this paper aims at . . . looking for approaches to interoperability that have low cost of adoption, yet provide substantial functionality. One of these approaches is the metadata harvesting protocol of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) . . . <P5> For Site for Science, we identified three levels of digital library interoperability: Federation; Harvesting; Gathering. In this list, the top level provides the strongest form of interoperability, but places the greatest burden on participants. The bottom level requires essentially no effort by the participants, but provides a poorer level of interoperability. The Site for Science demonstration concentrated on the harvesting and gathering, because other projects were exploring federation. <P6> In an ideal world all the collections and services that the NSDL wishes to encompass would support an agreed set of standard metadata. The real world is less simple. . . . However, the NSDL does have influence. We can attempt to persuade collections to move along the interoperability curve. <warrant> <P7> The Site for Science metadata strategy is based on two principles. The first is that metadata is too expensive for the Core Integration team to create much of it. Hence, the NSDL has to rely on existing metadata or metadata that can be generated automatically. The second is to make use of as much of the metadata available from collections as possible, knowing that it varies greatly from none to extensive. Based on these principles, Site for Science, and subsequently the entire NSDL, developed the following metadata strategy: Support eight standard formats; Collect all existing metadata in these formats; Provide crosswalks to Dublin Core; Assemble all metadata in a central metadata repository; Expose all metadata records in the repository for service providers to harvest; Concentrate limited human effort on collection-level metadata; Use automatic generation to augment item-level metadata. <P8> The strategy developed by Site for Science and now adopted by the NSDL is to accumulate metadata in the native formats provided by the collections . . . If a collection supports the protocols of the Open Archives Initiative, it must be able to supply unqualified Dublin Core (which is required by the OAI) as well as the native metadata format. <P9> From a computing viewpoint, the metadata repository is the key component of the Site for Science system. The repository can be thought of as a modern variant of the traditional library union catalog, a catalog that holds comprehensive catalog records from a group of libraries. . . . Metadata from all the collections is stored in the repository and made available to providers of NSDL service.
Conclusions
RQ 1 "Can a small team of librarians manage the collection development and metadata strategies for a very large library?" RQ 2 "Can the NSDL actually build services that are significantly more useful than the general web search services?"
CA Metadata is a key part of the information infrastructure necessary to organize and classify the massive amount of information on the Web. Metadata, just like the resources they describe, will range in quality and be organized around different principles. Modularity is critical to allow metadata schema designers to base their new creations on established schemas, thereby benefiting from best practices rather than reinventing elements each time. Extensibility and cost-effectiveness are also important factors. Controlled vocabularies provide greater precision and access. Multilingualism (translating specification documents into many languages) is an important step in fostering global metadata architecture(s).
Phrases
<P1> The use of controlled vocabularies is another important approach to refinement that improves the precision for descriptions and leverages the substantial intellectual investment made by many domains to improve subject access. (p.4) <P2> Standards typically deal with these issues through the complementary processes of internalization and localization: the former process relates to the creation of "neutral" standards, whereas the latter refers to the adaptation of such a neutral standard to a local context. (p.4)
Conclusions
RQ In order for the full potential of resource discovery that the Web could offer to be realized, a"convergence" of standards and semantics must occur.
CA In March 2003, the intention of undertaking an international survey of LOM implementations was announced at the plenary meeting of the "Information Technology for Learning, Education and Training", ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 sub-committee. The ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 committee is international in both membership and emphasis, and has a working group, Working Group (WG) 4, "Management and Delivery for Learning, Education, and Training," which has been explicitly charged with the task of contributing to future standardization work on the LOM. <warrant> The international LOM Survey focuses on two questions: 1) "Which elements were selected for use or population?"; and 2) "How were these elements used, or what where the types of values assigned to them?" This report also attempts to draw a number of tentative suggestions and conclusions for further standardization work
Conclusions
RQ Based on its findings, the preliminary survey report was able to suggest a number of conclusions: First, fewer and better-defined elements may be more effective than the range of choice and interpretive possibilities currently allowed by the LOM. This seems to be especially the case regarding educational elements, which are surprisingly underutilized for metadata that it ostensibly and primarily educational. Second, clear and easily-supported means of working with local, customized vocabularies would also be very valuable. Third, it also seems useful to ensure that structures are provided to accommodate complex but more conventional aspects of resource description. These would include multiple title versions, as well as multilingual descriptions and values.
SOW
DC On June 12, 2002, 1484.12.1 - 2002 Learning Object Metadata (LOM) was approved by the IEEE-Standards Association.
This document is a revision and expansion of "Metadata Made Simpler: A guide for libraries," published by NISO Press in 2001.
Publisher
NISO Press
Critical Arguements
CA An overview of what metadata is and does, aimed at librarians and other information professionals. Describes various metadata schemas. Concludes with a bibliography and glossary.
