Metadata Standards Adoption and

1
Metadata Standards Adoption and
Knowledge-Sharing A Study of Projects from
the IMLS National Leadership Grants Program,
1998-2003 Carole L. Palmer Graduate School of
Library and Information Science University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Diffusion of
Knowledge in the Field of Digital Library
Development ASIST annual meeting, Providence,
RI 16 November 2004
2
How is knowledge about metadata standards
developed and shared? Examined within the
context of http//imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.ed
u/ Providing integrated access to IMLS National
Leadership Grant (NLG) digital collections
through a centralized collection registry and
metadata repository Investigating how
collections and items can best be represented to
meet the needs of service providers and diverse
user communities
Institute of Museum and Library
Services Digital Collections and
Content working toward interoperable digital
content
3
Scope of DCC Project Building repository for
122 digital projects, 72 collaborative 93
projects involved at least one academic
library 326 total contributing institutions 66
museums 28 historical societies 19 public
libraries Collections range from transcripts of
oral histories, to digitized audio files, and
digitally produced artwork. Vast majority
contain images of artifacts sheet music, maps,
photographs, museum objects, plants, different
kinds of texts.
4

• Data collection to date
• Content analysis of 122 successful NLG proposals
• (95 for 1998-2002, 27 for 2003)
• 2-part survey on metadata practices
• 1) type of material, metadata schemes,
• audience, technical implementation
• 76 response rate
• 2) potential use a central repository, suggested
• collection description elements, issues or
  problems
• encountered applying, using, or sharing metadata
• 72 response rate

5

• Data collection to date
• Email follow-up to respondents of Survey 2 on
• efficacy of metadata schemes
• differentiation of subcollections
• Interviews with 17 projects (24 sessions, 37
  participants)
• representing the diversity of NLG projects in
  terms of institution type and size, metadata use,
  and the type of materials included in their
  digital collection
• Focus Group with 9 NLG projects (11
  participants)

6
Data applicability Not able to measure levels
of diffusion of metadata knowledge Rather, DCC
participants activities and decisions as
indicators of application of metadata
knowledge in DL development mechanisms by
which knowledge is shared how knowledge base is
changing and growing
7
Knowledge diffusion structures and
channels Inter-institutional Collaborative
projects State-wide initiatives Opinion
leaders Migration Intra-institutional Multi-pr
oject programs Cross-functional teams
8
Dynamics of evolving knowledge base Constructio
n of common knowledge Negotiation of competing
knowledge Accommodation of complementary
knowledge Emergence of working
principles Tradeoffs, voids, degradation, and
growth
9
Multi-type institution collaborations Formal
primary and secondary partnerships among
institutions Informal by-product
associations also have explicit influence on
metadata approaches Assemblages of diverse
knowledge and expertise cataloging and
metadata digitization content /
collections academic subject areas text
encoding teaching For some, grants provide
only way to learn from each other.
10
State-wide digitization initiatives Applying a
diffusion model over a collection model going
out and teaching, not getting stuff and doing
digitization All sorts of organizations
learning about things they never knew anything
about technology, cataloging, care of
collections hundreds trained in beginning and
advanced workshops on digitization and
metadata outreach to schools and
teachers Alliances among research libraries
within and across states Crosswalk
program Controlled vocabulary initiative
11
Multi-project programs Project-to-project
advancements methods, procedures, and systems
technology transfer and adaptation training
and workflows Significant shifts over course
of two projects from show us how and learning
by trial and error to providing services,
equipment, technology to others
12
Cross-functional teams Relatively large teams
compared to other non-grant projects 10-25
individuals, including part-time and students
many with high reliance on volunteers and
interns Many team members contributing outside
specialist roles Reference librarians working on
cataloging Systems support learning metadata,
crosswalking Catalogers working on databases and
historical research Bindery operations doing
scanning and web page development History and
museum professionals learning cataloging
principles
13
Opinion leaders Principals investigators and
project managers within collaborations and
partnerships extended through advisory
activities further disseminated via conference
presentations Migration Unintended consequence
of soft money turnover Project coordinators
rudder for individual projects and core base
of knowledge for applied field
14
Metadata Schemes Used in NLG Projects
Total of 54 use Dublin Core alone or in
combination with another scheme(s).
15
Metadata knowledge influx Mix of knowledge,
experience, learning, and heuristics represented
within and across projects Much adoption and
application involves incremental learning and
problem-solving by trial-and-error Concentration
s of knowledge generation and dissemination
where activity is both multi-project and
collaborative
16
Constructing common knowledge Best practices
often referenced, sometimes locally
codified Dublin Core widely considered best
practice for description Easy to apply,
satisfies main goal of access to items used with
digital objects, original objects,
variations Also extended through adherence to
practices of collaborators Changes,
modifications often only after disappointment
with DC
17
Limited common knowledge Metadata as a
mechanism for sharing and federation not a
priority for most projects Open Archive
Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting not
yet in realm of best practice 14 OAI
providers, 19 aware some DC use based on
desire to comply with OAI a few mapping all
to DC to be fully OAI compliant kick in the
pants to do what needed to be done anyway
18
Negotiating competing knowledge Battling
standards represented in description practices
across archives, museums, libraries Differing
institutional and professional priorities
and ideas about optimization of collections
Museum perspective We dont do metadata, not
the kind of records we deal with Museums from
library perspective Hard to get people to
understand standards, interpret rules Description
irregularities and granularity problems
19
Accommodating complementary knowledge Recognition
that compromises important, even if technically
difficult in long run Deliberate, purposeful
hybridization Integration of multiple
thesauri Acknowledge AACR2, MARC not necessarily
most helpful wonderful description from
curators, volunteers Even when planned
integration of disparate metadata formats not
achieved, still high levels of knowledge exchange
and growth From sophisticated authority control
to doing description of any kind for first time.
20
Emerging working principles Its not cataloging
anymore Description for resource
discovery established LIS and museum
professionals released from cataloging and
museum record mentality Description for
functionality Metadata drives everything. Cont
ent and subject expertise dont get you very far
Learned to emphasize technical and production
aspects But, for some, still about the
collection or exhibit, its value to the
institution and to new potential users.
21
Tradeoffs, voids, and doubt Outsourcing vs.
in-house operations Lack of knowledge on
Technical metadata Archiving Use and value
to users Resistance to simplified description
22
New professional and cultural heritage
knowledge Growing understanding of structuring
information description, texts, relationships
among objects Sustained work flows and expertise
no longer a project, its part of what we
do More widespread knowledge of how to get
grants Knowledge production research on
artifacts local authority work teaching and
learning by educators and historians
23
Acknowledgements Ellen Mike Sarah and
Tim IMLS