Jorum

1
Jorum Cataloguing of resources Mary Jane
Steer University of Bristol
2

• Jorum and Intute
• Collaboration
• Since 2005
• Jorum - JISC funded Information Environment
  service a learning materials repository
• Intute - JISC funded best of the Web service
  with cataloguing/metadata experience

3

• Jorum initial stages
• Work included
• Design of Jorum interface using Intralibrary
• Metadata fields, adapted from IEEE LOM
• Workflow procedures

4

• Intute involvement
• Began with
• Team of cataloguers who either were or had been
  Intute cataloguers
• With experience in adding appropriate metadata to
  e-resources
• We devised guidelines for Jorum metadata fields
  based on cataloguing standards, and Intute best
  practice

5

• Cataloguing standards
• Important for
• Consistent look and feel to the records in Jorum
• Optimum results when searching and browsing
• Importance of appropriate keywords and
  classifications

6

• Keywords
• Intute use controlled vocabularies where possible
  
• Difficult to source for very wide subject
  coverage, so uncontrolled in Jorum
• eg alternating current (useful), but alternating
  and current as separate keywords not very useful
• eg different terminology for same concept
  respiration / breathing

7

• And more
• Plurals
• Searching software often picks up both terms with
  simple plurals eg atom and atoms
• But less likely with complex plurals eg leaf and
  leaves
• Important to specify use of plural keywords to
  avoid missing relevant content

8

• Classification scheme
• 5 in use
• Subjects for HE JACS
• Subjects for FE Learn Direct
• Pedagogic terms
• Policy themes
• Educational level

9

• Which schemes are actually useful?
• Jorum and Intute have discussed leaving out the
  Pedagogic terms and Policy themes classifications
• Educational level is quite subjective, and
  difficult to assign
• Learn Direct and JACS lists of subjects are more
  useful, and do help with browsing

10

• Other metadata
• Useful?
• Type of resource eg Exercise or Presentation
• And not included at present - Date of Creation of
  resource

11

• Other metadata
• Not so useful?
• Age of intended user
• Level of difficulty
• Level of interactivity

12

• Moving Forward
• Nearly 4 years on, now is a good time to review
• Essential metadata fields
• Fields to eliminate
• Fields to be filled in by contributor, not by
  cataloguer
• Fields to be added

13
What do the community think?