1. Metadata Interoperability
Assignment 5
LIS 688-04
Dr. Fatih Oguz

2. a qualitative property of metadata information objects that
enables systems and applications to work with or use these
objects across system boundaries

3. Interoperability is the ability of metadata standards to
communicate with other metadata standards

4. To prevent inaccuracies when sharing metadata.

5. - Controlled vocabulary
- Heterogeneities (structural and semantic)

6. Should be consistent and from a standard set of terms

7. These differences occur because of inconsistency between
standard models.
For example, the differences that may occur between a
schema that’s created to describe a digital image and a
schema designed to describe a book.

8. These differences occur because of an inconsistency between
schema definition languages or the interpretation of the
items themselves.
For example, one standard may have an element field labeled
creator where as another may use author to mean the same
thing.

9. Metadata Interoperability between MARC and FRBR

10. - MARC, or Machine-Readable Cataloging, is inherently
linear in structure
- FRBR, or Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records, was created to overcome the limits of MARC with
its non-linear approach

11. Seungmin Lee and Elin Jacob set out to make MARC and
FRBR interoperable.
This was a challenge because of the inherent differences in
structure between the two standards.

12. - Didn’t focus on element names
- Focused and categorized the elements based on their
attributes and entities
- Categorized into four groups: exact matching, analogous
matching, partial matching, and non-matching
- Within those four categories they identified four groups:
main class, class, subclass, and instance

13. - Finally they used the new categories to form a new
structure based on the semantic relationships they
identified.
- This left them with seven core categories that can be
mapped between both standards: author, title, subject,
description, identifier, publication, and format
- The end result is a standard that can represent both
single-layer and hierarchical structures, i.e.
interoperability between the two standards.

14. - Interoperability can save time
- Controlled vocabularies are important and should be
chosen wisely
- A metadata standard that would be suitable for all items
would be ideal, but is unlikely
- Interoperability should be of high importance when
creating new metadata standards

15. References
Haslhofer, B., & Klas, W. (2010). A Survey of Techniques for Achieving Metadata
Interoperability. ACM Computing Surveys, 42(2), 7.
Hedden, H. (2009). Reviews. Metadata for digital resources: implementation, systems design and
interoperability. Key Words, 17(1), 33–34.
Hodge, G. (2008). Toward interoperability: a report from the 11th Open Forum on Metadata
Registries and related standards. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
& Technology, 35(1), 25–30.
Jung-ran Park, & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and
Collections: Schemata, Selection Criteria, and Interoperability.. Information Technology
& Libraries, 29(3), 104–116. doi:Article
Seungmin Lee, & Jacob, E. K. (2011). An Integrated Approach to Metadata Interoperability:
Construction of a Conceptual Structure between MARC and FRBR. Library Resources &
Technical Services, 55(1), 17.
Zeng, M. L., & Qin, J. (2004). Metadata. New York: Neal-Shuman Publishers, Inc. doi:ISBN
978-1-55570-635-7