Heretical Metadata: Abandoning Perfection in the Digital Age
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
5 gefällt mir•1,577 views
Keynote address given at a Springer Global Summit on Oct. 15, 2014. Source information for images available upon request.
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Heretical Metadata: Abandoning Perfection in the Digital Age
Ähnlich wie Heretical Metadata: Abandoning Perfection in the Digital Age (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Heretical Metadata: Abandoning Perfection in the Digital Age
- 1. Heretical Metadata: Abandoning Perfection in the Digital Age Shana L. McDanold October 15, 2014
- 2. Heretical (adj.): 1.1 Holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted 2
- 3. The GOAL: Make resources uniquely identifiable Key points in my philosophy: Perfection is overrated Standards are important Bend the “rules” to meet user needs The user is your guide, not the “rules” or instructions DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT 3
- 4. Why are we collecting this? What is the collection goal? How does it fit into the mission/goal of the collection? Of the library/institution? 4
- 5. Who are the users? 5
- 6. What do the users need? PAST 6
- 7. What do the users need? NOW 7
- 8. What do the users need? FUTURE 8
- 9. FRBR User Tasks FIND 9 to locate either a single entity or a set of entities as the result of a search using an attribute or relationship of the entity IDENTIFY To confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics SELECT To choose an entity that meets the user’s requirements with respect to content, physical format, etc., or to reject an entity as being inappropriate to the user’s needs OBTAIN To acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity electronically through an online connection
- 12. Focus on the GOAL CONTENT: Let the user choose how they access it 12
- 13. Focus on the GOAL ACCESS POINTS: Key element of discovery Identity management Controlled vocabulary 13
- 14. Focus on the GOAL DESCRIPTION: Start with the citation elements Different level of detail is needed for different things 14
- 15. Focus on the GOAL FLEXIBILITY: Bend as necessary 15
- 16. Challenges Digital doesn’t meet all needs Accessibility challenges Preservation Maintenance 16
- 17. Where do we go next? Step into the rabbit hole… LINKED DATA BIBFRAME 17
- 18. Change the focus to leverage the metadata… Ask questions… Experiment… Be heretical! 18
Hinweis der Redaktion
- From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/heretical Accessed 10/10/2014 Also METADATA (n.): A set of data that describes and gives information about other data. purpose: facilitate discovery, also organizes, identifies, collocates, disambiguates NOT limited to description – descriptive, structural, technical, administrative, preservation, process, (and probably more…) underlying structure to the web – semantic web – dependent on LINKED DATA (we’ll talk more about that later) So Heretical Metadata? going against the grain when creating metadata in the library/archives/museum world
- Personal philosophy/approach to metadata GOAL: Uniquely identifiable (and as a result findable) – this is the “short” version of what I do for a living Goal is applicable for everyone in the information lifecycle – not just for users goal itself isn’t heretical per se it’s how I choose to pursue achieving that goal Perfection – LET IT GO progress, not perfection Standards? Why? – data migration; communication; machine manipulation Bend the rules – not really “rules” now, but “instructions”; don’t be afraid to bend them to meet needs, but track how you bend them! Documentation: how else will you remember what has been done when you need to undo it?
- Same types of questions asked by our collection development colleagues. For Metadata, these questions tell us a lot about where it should live, level/type of access, level of metadata detail, circulation/loan rules, etc. Is it for research? Is it for current recreation (e.g. bestsellers)? Both (DVDs, etc.)? Are we fulfilling a specific request? Are we trying to ensure a solid base for a new curriculum/degree? Support existing or growing curriculum/degree? Historical importance for library? Institution? Region? Retention agreements/partnerships?
- Jack: https://alumni.georgetown.edu/newsevents/newsevents_275.html Woman w/newspapers (DigitalGeorgetown): http://hdl.handle.net/10822/554889 ALA Midwinter 2010 exhibits – personal photos (on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanalee/4310761816/in/set-72157623298615010) All Staff Photo Sept. 2013 Students: http://www.thehoya.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Hoya-Photo-6.jpg Who are the users? OR (more accurately) Who are we trying to serve? Vendors: they know their users – market to them – target them – focus on meeting needs the user/customer doesn’t know they have yet Users are students, guests, faculty, researchers, etc. – many different levels of expertise and needs (from surface to in depth) Users are also us (fellow staff/librarians), and the machines (indexes, programs, servers, internet, etc.) Example: 588 – Description Based On / Latest Issue Consulted – used to communicate between metadata folks, because we are also users of the records; not useful for public, but useful for those who do record maintenance
- Phone in my Grandmother’s kitchen, still in use, 2014 bridge from past to now to future – did my post library degree phone interviews on this phone, talking about my technology skills – I can bridge all the divides! Key needs in the past: Being available for direct contact/interaction: consultations, hands on help, available assistance (when user needs) via multiple ways
- Ask Us page: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/ask-us Still haven’t changed: Interaction is key in both environments, but expanded: labs, consultations, hands on help, available assistance (when user needs) via multiple ways – text, chat (user initiated, context dependent, etc.), phone, etc. How do we meet the needs of now in conjunction with preparing and being open to developing for the future?
- Libraries of the future, by Tom Gauld: http://myjetpack.tumblr.com/post/43399808071/a-book-of-my-cartoons-will-be-out-in-late-april Still necessary: interaction – several examples in cartoon (holographic, sentient, etc.) Libraries will still be guides, or a portal, to information – level the playing field
- Excuse me why I bore you with some acronym talk…FRBR – Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Published 1998 http://www.ifla.org/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records All about the GOAL: make stuff findable! And uniquely identifiable! Focus: user tasks and relationships; unique identification – way to organize the bibliographic universe – conceptual as in a way to think/approach, but NOT prescriptive use as a GUIDE to the GOAL (Make resources uniquely identifiable) Can inform selection and metadata
- FRBR: FIND Pay attention to what your users are searching and what they are accessing – can they successfully FIND? USE the metrics (the search metadata!) to refine your existing descriptive/access point metadata, adjust indexes, and make it better http://xkcd.com/773/
- Image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SML-Card-Catalog.jpg (public domain) Book arts image: http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/book-art-b.jpg FRBR: FIND How are users searching? What are users accessing? Historically: the library was IN CONTROL of how users searched and accessed materials – card catalog, print indexes; users were dependent on libraries to find stuff Key word to answering both questions: granularity Users had to use the card catalog – one route to content; focused on the “perfect” because once typed, editing and filing was, frankly, a pain in the butt (time consuming, difficult, etc.) How are they searching? What are they accessing? Also: Granularity of access: journal vs. article; book vs. chapter; object vs. text; digital vs. tangible; Granularity makes a difference in where/how they search and what they find
- GOAL: Make resources uniquely identifiable FRBR: SELECT ; OBTAIN Content – the container/how to access is secondary – what users need first is the content – we provide the content, the users choose what they need and how to access it Automat – self serve restaurants http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/automat-ny-roberts-pod/
- GOAL: Make resources uniquely identifiable FRBR: FIND ; IDENTIFY Controlled vocabulary/access points – key for linking and identification in discovery What are access points? STANDARDIZED in some way for consistency in searching, indexing, relationships (see/see also), etc. Names (personal, corporate, conferences, works/expressions (preferred title), subjects (from controlled vocabularies)) How you draw people in – access points! But the devil is in the details…the description (next slide)! Beckett’s : personal photo, June 14, 2014 Card catalog: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68103485@N05/6197933357/
- GOAL: Make resources uniquely identifiable FRBR: FIND ; IDENTIFY Description: focus on the citation elements, and then add as needed to make things uniquely identifiable The “detail” level work – the devil is in the details Access points only get the user so far, next they have to choose which version, edition, etc. they need (illustrated? Specific/latest edition? Online? Print? Etc.) Some items require more detail than others – rare/special materials, etc. vs. trade paperback XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/992/
- GOAL: Make resources uniquely identifiable Flexibility – can have more than one appropriate container – don’t have to choose in this digital age same file – multiple collections – multiple access points How many ways can you make something accessible? No longer limited to the card catalog – things can be indexed and presented in many ways – don’t limit yourself! ABANDON PERFECTION and the idea of a “RIGHT” option; there are more than one
- Accessibility challenges: link resolvers, proxy, collection stability, ADA accessible requirements Preservation: bits and bytes degrade; files “disappear”; impact of elements on objects; etc. Maintenance: collection level, record level, object itself, files, etc. Image: Frist Library and Archive at the Country Music Hall of Fame – have objects, as well as papers, media, etc. LC Image: http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/files/2013/09/PDA.jpg
- Fuzzy Britches (my sister’s rabbit) Sculpture: http://sculpting.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/careful-dont-fall-down-rabbit-hole-0116506/ artists Dan Havel and Dean Ruck of Art League Houston decided to take advantage of the situation and create the super trippy Tunnel House – from two houses scheduled for demolition (4 years ago, since demolished) Where are we going? Migrating data to the web so it’s not in library-data siloes anymore! Moving from chasing print citations to chasing links on the web – the proverbial internet rabbit hole Web friendly data? Content focused! Allows for linking of like things, extending the rabbit hole – relationships! Collocation! Library metadata is curated and controlled: reliable and consistent Workflow impact: shared data repositories Make light work, but can also be messy Standards! Documentation! Data migration – how much loss is acceptable? No data migration is lossless – rearrange and refocus our data to preserve it What is Linked Data? – focused on relationships and identifiers per Wikipedia: “linked data (often capitalized as Linked Data) describes a method of publishing structured data so that it can be interlinked and become more useful. It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs, but rather than using them to serve web pages for human readers, it extends them to share information in a way that can be read automatically by computers. This enables data from different sources to be connected and queried” coined by Tim Berners-Lee – semantic web – 4 principles RDF: Resource Description Framework – generic data model including describing relationships Ultimately – information lives in it’s own container/place, but is linked endlessly, allowing people to access it without having to replicated it in their own systems/indexes – one giant network! Everything builds on everything else, making the data richer and more useful with each new link. http://linkeddata.org/ What is BIBFRAME? replacement for MARC, BIBFRAME serves as a general model for expressing and connecting bibliographic data designed to integrate with the web and current Linked Data protocols, including RDF Why should I care? It’s the future. Helps users navigate the rabbit hole – and we (libraries) are still the main portal. Resources: https://docs.google.com/a/georgetown.edu/document/d/1PAGDzE0FrJoe-scyIbGyLXOBF-tCEsrVY5Tr5r50hvU/edit?usp=sharing
- “It’s the metadata, stupid: and it’s not just for your audience” (Joshua Lasky, posted 5/21/2014) To succeed in the digital age is to be able to easily aggregate all of your articles in the most meaningful way for each of your visitors. Competitors such as Circa actively use metadata to surface relevant content during breaking news events.”