You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Dome Metadata Update

30 March 2011

Prepared by the Metadata Operations Team (Jolene de Verges, Mikki Simon Macdonald, and Rob Wolfe)

for the Metadata Coordinating Group (Nina Davis-Millis, Tom Rosko, and Deb Morley)

The MIT Libraries have set up a repository for their growing collection of digitized content. This repository, named “Dome,” is an instance of the DSpace software package. The DSpace software comes with a default registry of metadata fields that has so far been only minimally adjusted as the Libraries have begun to deposit collections in Dome.

To date there are eleven collections in Dome with a total of 53,784 items. As each collection was mapped into Dome, ad hoc decisions were made as to which metadata fields to use, what custom qualifiers to attach, and how these fields would be used within the scope of the collection. This has led to collections that are not always compatible with one another. An urgent need to improve the metadata registry in Dome and establish sound metadata policies becomes more and more apparent with each new collection deposited in Dome.

The default registry of metadata fields in Dome is inadequate for the following reasons:

  • The metadata fields are modeled after the dublin core standard, but they do not strictly conform to the standard. They contain many custom elements that “qualify” the standard dublin core terms.
  • The metadata fields are geared towards scholarly publications and are not adequate to describe other types of material. So far text, images and complex content has be deposited in Dome, straining the descriptive capabilities of Dome’s metadata fields to their limit. Dome will soon contain audio, video, websites, archived internet content, rich media applications, maps and datasets.

Sound metadata policies are needed for the following reasons:

  • Dome collections will originate from many different sources each with unique metadata policies and practices. They will likely be cataloged prior to deposit in Dome and according to a variety of different metadata standards and schemas. This heterogeneous metadata needs to be reconciled to achieve consistent description of content in Dome.
  • Browse and search functions in the current Dome user interface require consistent use of each metadata field across all collections.
  • This consistent use of metadata is especially necessary in order to build new user interfaces on top of Dome that include all collections.
  • Established metadata requirements and policies allows future digitization projects to plan to meet them, eliminating the need to create an individual, idiosyncratic metadata mapping and workflow for each new collection we deposit in Dome.

In order to provide better access to our digital collections, we propose updating Dome (in accordance with newly drafted DomeCore metadata policy) to meet the changing needs of our collections and those of our user community.

Proposed updates to Dome (and Dome metadata)

  • Standardize use of metadata in Dome
  • Create new metadata registries, as needed (see Next Steps section for more details)
    • this will mean that one item record may be comprised of elements from several different metadata schemas – this is already being done in DSpace in the OA and OCW collections
  • Require all new items ingested into Dome meet these new standards
  • Existing item records must be remapped to comply with the new standards

Potential benefits

  • Shared vocabulary, definitions and metadata usage across all Dome collections
  • Improve browse and search capabilities across collections
  • Ability to manage format specific metadata
  • Better positioned for future projects involving data migration, manipulation and visualization

Planning and accomplishments to-date

(see wiki https://wikis-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/confluence/display/LIBMETADATA/Dome+Metadata)

In completing this work we realized the immediate need for standard practices, definitions and usage of metadata across all collections and communities in Dome.

  • Dome Core (required and optional metadata) – approved by MCG 17 Aug 2010
  • Metadata tool chart (IRIS/AT)
  • Recommendations for Dome search and browse indices - approved by MCG 17 Aug 2010
  • Draft of format and genre specific core metadata needs
  • Mapped Dome Core elements to the existing element structure in Dome
  • Analyzed the current use of metadata elements in Dome and established definitions and usages parameters for Dome Core elements (both required and optional) – chart is being finalized, draft can be found on the wiki
  • Drafted a list of changes necessary to bring existing metadata in Dome into compliance with the Dome Core and the recommended registry changes – work is being finalized, draft can be found on the wiki

Next Steps

  • Draft a final report with Dome Core policies and recommendations
  • Get approval from the *_Metadata Coordinating Group_* to move ahead to proposed changes to the Dome metadata registry and associated projects
  • Set a date (Summer 2011) when all new records submitted to Dome will be required to meet Dome Core standards and will have the option of including metadata elements from various schemes (date to be set by Metadata Coordinating Group)
  • Create new metadata registries in Dome
    • dcterms
      • proper dublin core schema and namespace
    • dometerms (name up for debate)
      • new schema and namespace for local terms that do not fit into a standard recognized schema
    • VRA, and other schemas as necessary to meet the needs of specific formats and genres (EBUcore, mods, etc.)
  • Take action in each contributing community to bring workflows into compliance with Dome Core Metadata Policies
    • Carl and collection administrators will need to work together to create new mappings from metadata creation tools to Dome
    • Our plan is to standardize this process and whenever possible reuse mappings and workflows to cut down on repetitive work and maintain consistency across our collections
  • Meet with Beverly, Carl, Sands and Bill (possibly others) to discuss what it will take to bring existing Dome records into compliance with new policies
  • Prepare proposal to make the necessary changes to bring the existing metadata in Dome into compliance with Dome Core Metadata Policies
  • Submit a proposal to the Project Review Committee to fund the retrospective cleanup phase of the project (https://wikis-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/confluence/display/LIBPRC/Proposal+process)
    • _We are unsure how to position the project for this proposal – any thoughts?_
    • Note: We believe that this project is very important. This should be a high priority, even if we do not receive any additional funding through this proposal process. We will do what we can to make this project feasible.
  • No labels