Metadata
The scenario that I chose is the one about Metadata issues in Digital Libraries with an analysis of the key concepts and perspectives. This scenario is similar to my plans since I have the interest to focus on the aspect of cataloging. Cataloging activities are done through very strict rules whereby it entails the creation of bibliographic records used in describing a document as a unique resource that must be safely retrieved and stored and ensuring that its features are preserved. The subject domain being metadata for digital libraries, I have an interest in the topic since I want to delve into the aspect of cataloging.
The problem domain will entail an overview of data management in a digital library. The digital library is a system for retrieving information that is majorly accessed by computers. The collections accessed by these computers are stored digitally. Various metadata schemas are often used when so that information is effectively accessed and retrieved in the DL environment. Similarly, metadata schemas based on classical methods, tools, and approaches like schemas for bibliography classification are employed.
One features that describe this dataset from others are the types and the number of attributes applicable to only this dataset and not any other. For instance, nominal data used to represent an individual’s features is one unique feature of the dataset. The similarity of this data to other datasets that I have seen is the use of various metadata schemas based on classical methods and tools and approaches that ensure easy access and retrieval of information, ensure effective search and access of information resources in the DL environment.
Regarding this dataset, I think that the digital library works effectively through its employment of cataloging, a practice that follows strict rules to execute. Similarly, the use of an appropriate and effective index of classification that reflects the data, the content, and the purpose of a document while placing it virtually and physically by subject and thematically. Today, every digital library globally has a directory of electronic data cataloging. The catalog has entries and on the stored documents in its funds and, therefore, helps users to easily and efficiently retrieve a searched material.
I also feel that the task of feeding data into a catalog is tedious and time-consuming, and it also requires one to have experience in executing the process. Therefore, to reduce such costs and time used in executing the tasks, world-renowned libraries often share their records of catalogs with other libraries freely to avoid duplication of records. For instance, the Congress Library and other major university libraries in the country often share catalog records for dree to avoid costs associated with it and also avoid duplication of records.
One metadata format is UNIMARC. It was originally designed to be a format for switching that enables a broader interchange of bibliographic information. A large number of countries have developed UNIMARC to be used as a format for production. Similarly, world organizations like UNESCO have employed the use of this format for their library products. It aims to help the developing nations that have UNESCO world heritage sites move to the digital system of library management. UNIMARC has four formats the authorities, bibliographic, classification, and holdings.
Another format is the XML format. All markup languages came from Standardized Generalized Mark-up Language (SGML). This format was widely employed in the 1980s in technical scenarios, especially for scientific publishing. This format is based on the same grammar and different formats that are linked to make a recording of profiles called DTD. It is also widely used by many communities since it enables more efficient functionality than the traditional MARC formats. Similarly, its extensibility and flexibility enable the expression of different models of data. The XML format is more efficient in the representation of analytical and hierarchical information, thus allow good link management between digital sources and bibliographic records.
Yes, I have concerns about the sufficiency of some of these metadata formats since it can be hard to execute some of them and also can be hard for the user of the digital library resources to retrieve information. Additionally, some other metadata formats might not bring out the good impression that most people are after when selecting a metadata format to employ (Lazinger, 2001). This can pose a challenge because when one’s confidence wanes concerning the metadata format he/she adopts, then the whole structure of the information storage and retrieval also becomes inefficient and less effective. Therefore, choosing a good metadata format goes a long way in ensuring that the metadata is accessible for wider use by communities.
One metadata format is the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). This format is designed to ensure the widespread adoption of metadata standards that interoperate among one another and develop special vocabularies for metadata. The initiative that occurred in Dublin, Ohio, in the year 1995 brought together content producers, researchers in digital libraries, text markup experts, and a large number of librarians came together to devise ways of improving standards of discovery for information resources. The initial Dublin Core came into the limelight as a small set of descriptive elements but quickly gained international attention from a large number of information providers.
The second metadata format is MARC 21. This format is a product of incorporation of CANMARC, UK MARC, and USMARC. This format is the most extensively used globally, and it is a de-facto standard. This format is designed for both as an exchange and a production format. The five MARC 21 formats that exist include; Holdings, Bibliographic, Authorities, Classification, and Community data. The Library of Congress is the current body tasked with maintaining MARC 21. It also offers support documents and does its translation to several other languages. For instance, the Library Archives of Canada maintains the French translations of the MARC 21 formats.
MARCXML is a format that is used for the description of the MARC 21 format in XML. This format is a Document Type Definition (DTD). MARCXML is applied in the Library of Congress in many applications. This format was designed to mainly help in the shifting of other bibliographic formats to XML while ensuring that the compatibility with the existing data was well maintained.
MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) is another format that was created by the Congress Library with a specific value for library applications. The format was set as a multi-function element of the bibliography set schema. MODS is set with the intention of carrying information from the available records plus also enabling the formation of original description source documents. The XML schema language is the language used in expressing the MODS format. The Library of Congress maintains the Network Development and the Standards Office of MARC.
Online Information Exchange (ONIX) is another metadata format that can be described as a group of related XML standards for serials, books, and copyright publishing data. The Onix Books were widely adopted by authors and came to the limelight since book traders used it. The ONIX for books information product is the gold standard that is adopted and used globally for digital communication book trade data. It is also an advanced and comprehensive format that allows for the increased functionality and ease of use in diverse environments.
The truly descriptive metadata format was Onix 2.1. The book industry widely uses this format, and the onset of Onix 3.0 revolutionized metadata formats since it was widely adopted for e-books. Many libraries globally have long thought of using the book’s publisher information as the basis for cataloging. This strategy was aimed at enhancing efficiency. The migration of publishers from the local formats to Onix has made this proposition a realistic feature, and it has become less costly in maintaining a large number of translations to MARC. For instance, the NBA is responsible for the maintenance of the CIP program, which also accepts files formatted in Onix.
The formats that are the closest fit to my data are the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, which is designed to ensure widespread adoption of metadata standards that interoperate among one another and develop special vocabularies for metadata and the Online Information Exchange (ONIX). The formats that are widely used and have the most community support are the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and the XML formats. Most credible institutions use MARC 21 and XML formats. Yes, the formats support controlled vocabularies and browsing since they are more efficient in the representation of analytical and hierarchical information.
Yes, the formats may be used with other standard formats in use currently since many communities widely use them as it enables more efficient functionality. UNIMARC is the easiest metadata format to maintain since it was developed by several countries to be used as a production format. Similarly, world bodies like UNESCO have adopted the format because of its ease of use and its collection of four formats; the bibliographic, classification, authorities, and holdings.
Yes, it can be expected that new records may be created since technological advancement comes with huge potential for more advanced products to be made and deployed. However, many librarians have to be tech-savvy to be able to use the newly adopted records since most of them might find it confusing (Widener, 2015). I would choose UNIMARC as the format of choice to represent my data since this format enables a broader and efficient interchange of bibliographic information. Yes, this format can be customized a little, and other elements added to the format. Apart from the four formats of this metadata format, adding a fifth one like community information will go a long way in enhancing the efficiency of this format.
Since it is being developed by many countries globally and even world organizations like UNESCO, the anticipation is that future developments by countries will enhance its efficiency and interoperability with other formats. This format fits into the structure of the existing metadata standards since it enables a broader exchange of bibliographic data with other formats. The representation of this data on the internet is expected to take a simple procedure whereby searching and finding the information in it by librarians and many other people become easy.
Conclusion
Metadata formats for digital librarians are a game-changer in the world of advanced technology. Currently, the adoption of any format by any digital library is noon for its reputation and performance. The metadata formats described above are the icing on the cake, and the development of more of such formats will not only enhance digital library repositories but also promote the business of e-books and other services.
Reference
Widener, P., Eisenhauer, G., Schwan, K., & Bustamante, F. E. (2002). Open metadata formats: efficient XML-based communication for high-performance computing. Cluster Computing, 5(3), 315-324.
Lazinger, S. S. (2001). Digital Preservation and Metadata: History, Theory, Practice. Libraries Unlimited, A Division of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., PO Box 6633, Englewood, CO 80155-6633.