This document discusses metadata enriching and discovery at Solent University. It begins with introductions and context about how enriched, linked, open and filtered metadata drives resource usage. It then discusses several principles of metadata including sufficiency, necessity, user convenience, representation and standardization. The document outlines how Solent University has enriched its metadata by importing subject headings and authorities. It discusses metadata linking, openness, filtering and usage. Overall it emphasizes the importance of enriching metadata and keeping interfaces simple while maximizing resource discovery and usage.
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Metadata enriching and discovery at Solent University Library
1. GETANEH ALEMU, PH.D.
METADATA ENRICHING
& DISCOVERY AT
SOLENT UNIVERSITY
MDG 2020
Metadata & Discovery
7th -11th September 2020
2. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT
Metadata that is ENRICHED, LINKED,
OPEN and FILTERED drives usage of
resources.
(Alemu, 2014)
“The catalogue guides the reader as far as the location of the book
but not to the contents within and also r e l a t i o n s h i p s between
documents.” (Paul Otlet, 1934 cited by Wright, 2007; 2014)
3. “The convenience of the public is always to be set before the ease
of the cataloguer.” Cutter, 1904
SAVE THE TIME OF THE READER
Users expecting
• Instantaneous
• 24/7
• Seamless
• Triangulated/complete
• Full-text
• Convenient access
4. “Metadata plays a critical role in the function of any discovery service. Search,
relevancy ranking, faceted refinement, and recording grouping function (FRBR)
all respond to the metadata present.”
Source: (Han & Weathers, 2016, p, 275 in Varnum, 2016).
WHY METADATA?
5. METADATA & MONEY
• Return on investment in library resources is ever more important
• At Solent, 90% of the resources budget goes on digital products –
usage drives everything
• Metadata aides acquisition – the more we know about a resource,
the more likely we acquire the right one
• Metadata aides usage – undiscoverable resources do not get used
6. CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES
• The principle of sufficiency and necessity
• The principle of user convenience
• The principle of representation
• The principle of standardisation
(Svenonius, 2000; IFLA, 2009)
7. LIMITATION OF STANDARDS
Growing library collections
Ever changing technologies
Changing user expectations
Standards and their limitations
Books often lend themselves to various
interpretations and contexts
“The social space of documents is missing”
8. METADATA CREATION
Custodians: “libraries, archives, repositories who are tasked with
keeping this metadata and other information current, accessible, and
discoverable.” (Meadows, 2019)
(Meadows, 2019)
Authors
Users
Librarians
Publishers
Metadata
experts
9. METADATA ENRICHING
& FILTERING
• From the principle of metadata simplicity to the principle
of metadata enriching
• From human-readable metadata to structured, uniquely
identified and interlinked metadata (metadata linking)
• From metadata silos to metadata openness enabling
metadata sharing and re-use (metadata openness)
• From a single interface to user-led, re-configurable
interface (metadata filtering)
12. Solent University Library
Imported 15,000 LC subject headings (2016/17)
Imported 65,000 LC authorities (2016/17)
Embedded LC headings and authorities within
LMS (automatic updates) (2017/18)
Metadata sharing with community (2018/19)
SUBJECT HEADINGS & AUTHORITIES
13. S U B J E C T H E A D I N G S & A U T H O R I T Y C O N T R O L
14. S U B J E C T H E A D I N G S & A U T H O R I T Y C O N T R O L
15. C ATA L O G U I N G – A U T H O R I T Y & S U B J E C T H E A D I N G S
Context https://open-na.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/alma/contexts/bib
bibo:isbn13 http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780465085965 9780465085965
dct:creator http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n85347503 Weinberger, David, 1950-
dct:creator http://viaf.org/viaf/sourceID/LC|n85347503 Weinberger, David, 1950-
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85133143 Technological change
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85066147 Information resources management.
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh94003046 Personal information management.
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2009127186 Information technology Social aspects.
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2008006980 Information technology Management.
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh97007353 Knowledge management.
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2013002090 Linked open data
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2013002090 Linked Data
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2012003227 Big data
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh96000740 Metadata
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85076723 Librarianship
dct:subject http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh89000606 Information society
dct:language http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/eng ---
JSONLD version
https://open-
na.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/alma/44SSU_INST/bibs/99009683
7020204796
---
18. S U B J E C T H E A D I N G S & A U T H O R I T Y C O N T R O L
19. • FRBR requires good metadata
• FRBR criteria – matching title and
author fields
• Authority records/headings –
standardisation and consistency in
recording authors
FRBRISATION /GROUPING OF RELATED WORKS
Author matching rules
100 a (personal name), b (numeration), c (title associated with name), q (fuller
form of name)
110 a, b, c, q
111 a, b, c, n, q
700 a, b, c, q
710 a, b, c, q
711 a, b, c, n (Number of part/section/meeting), q
Title matching rules
240 a (uniforma title), d, m, n, p, r
245 a, b, e, f, g, n, p
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/040Dedup_and_FRBR_for_Primo_VE/010Understanding_the_Dedup_and_FRBR_Processes_(Primo_VE)
“The catalogue has to tell you more than what you ask for….
The answer of a good catalogue is not to say yes or no, but … to
tell [the user] that the library has [the item] in so many editions
and translations, and you have your choice.” Seymour Lubetzky,
1977
21. F R B R – T H E C A S E O F VA RY I N G T I T L E S , E D I T I O N S , A U T H O R S
23. N A M E S – W H I C H B R I T I S H P R I M E M I N I S T E R I S D I F F I C U LT T O C ATA L O G U E ?
24. N A M E S – W H I C H B R I T I S H P R I M E M I N I S T E R I S D I F F I C U LT T O C ATA L O G U E ?
25. Hosted by ALCTS, Association for Library Collections and Technical Services
26. F R B R – S U B J E C T H E A D I N G S – S TA N D A R D I S AT I O N A N D C O N S I S T E N C Y
I N R E C O R D I N G N A M E S A N D P L A C E S
27. R D A – R E S O U R C E D E S C R I P T I O N & A C C E S S
RDA better complies with current web technologies (in line
with FRBR’s WEMI, FRAD theoretical framework and the use
of relations and relationship designators)
RDA enables the creation of metadata that better caters for
finding, discovering, identifying, selecting, obtaining and
exploring information resources (access & usage)
RDA is intuitive for cataloguers and helps to generate user-
friendly bibliographic metadata, for example it avoids the use
of abbreviations (usability and accessibility)
28. R D A – R E S O U R C E D E S C R I P T I O N &
A C C E S S
AACR2 RDA
29. R D A – R E S O U R C E D E S C R I P T I O N & A C C E S S
AACR2:
• AACR2 - borne in a time when space on the 3X4 inch card catalogue/storage
space was a major issue
• Adheres to the principle of metadata simplicity
• Abbreviated bibliographic description (such as ed., rev., vol., s.l., s.n., n.d., &
et al)
RDA:
• AACR2’s rule of three expanded – more access points /index terms
• RDA better empowers the cataloguer
• RDA is designed with linking and collocating multi-part and related works
together
• Richer metadata description (the principle of metadata enriching)
30. R D A – B I B R E C O R D N O R M A L I S AT I O N
37. METADATA USAGE
• Specificity of subjects Individual/concrete subjects [persons, events, places] (e.g.
Churchill; D-Day, Normandy ) vs General/abstract subjects (e.g. Leadership) (Cutter,
1904 cited by Dousa, 2015)
• “Coextensive heading is one that summarises the book’s topic, fits it like a cap that is
neither to loose, not too tight.” (Stone, 2000)
38. CONSIDER THE USER: OLD & NEW VOCABULARY
Toryism
Thatcherism
Blairites
Anglo Saxon
The Whigs
The Tories
Commoners
Curia Regs
The Witan
Magna Carta
Bill of Rights
42. ENRICH THEN FILTER
Keep the metadata enriched
Keep the interface simple
Keep users happy
Keep maximising usage & impact
43. B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Alemu, G., & Stevens, B. (2015). An emergent theory of digital library metadata: Enrich then filter. Waltham, Massachusetts: Chandos
Publishing.
British Library. (2018). British Library data model. Retrieved from http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/pdfs/bldatamodelbook.pdf
Calhoun, K. (2014). Exploring digital libraries: Foundations, practice, prospects. London: Facet Publishing.
Carpenter, T. (2017). Enriching book metadata is marketing in the digital age. Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/12/07/enriching-metadata-is-marketing/
Clarke, M and Harley, P. (2014). How Smart Is Your Content? Using Semantic Enrichment to Improve Your User Experience and Your Bottom
Line. Science Editor. Vol. 37. Jan. 2014, pp. 40–44.
Cousins, S. (2019). NBK data model. Retrieved from https://libraryservices.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2019/04/nbk-data-model/
Daquino, M., Mambelli, Peroni, Tomasi, & Vitali. (2017). Enhancing Semantic Expressivity in the Cultural Heritage Domain: Exposing the Zeri
Photo Archive as Linked Open Data. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 10(4), 1-21.
DATASIFT. (2019). Our data enrichments. Retrieved from https://datasift.com/platform/data-enrichments/
de Boer, V., Melgar, L., Inel, O., Ortiz, C. M., Aroyo, L., & Oomen, J. (2017). Enriching media collections for event-based exploration. In E.
Garoufallou, S. Virkus, R. Siatri & D. Koutsomiha (Eds.), Metadata and semantic research: 11th international conference, MTSR 2017, Tallinn,
Estonia, November 28 – December 1, 2017, Proceedings (pp. 189-201). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70863-
8_18 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70863-8_18
De Rosa, C. (2006). College students' perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC
Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved from https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/reports/pdfs/Percept_all.pdf
Dunsire, G., Harper, C., Hillmann, D., & Phipps, J. (2012, Linked data vocabulary management: Infrastructure support, data integration, and
interoperability. Information Standards Quarterly, 24, 4-13. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1709495584?accountid=13969
Europeana.eu (2016). Definition of the Europeana Data Model v5.2.7. Retrieved from
https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Share_your_data/Technical_requirements/EDM_Documentation/EDM_Definition_v5.2
.7_042016.pdf
Europeana.eu (2018). Enrich Europeana. Retrieved from https://pro.europeana.eu/project/enrich-europeana
Gartner, R. (2016). Metadata: Shaping knowledge from antiquity to the semantic web. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
44. B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Gonzales, B. M. (2014). Linking libraries to the web: Linked data and the future of the bibliographic record. Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 33(4), 10-
22. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1640762414?accountid=13969
Gracy, K. F. (2018). Enriching and enhancing moving images with linked data: An exploration in the alignment of metadata models. Journal of Documentation, 74(2),
354-371. doi:10.1108/JD-07-2017-0106
Haynes, D. (2018). Metadata for information management and retrieval : Understanding metadata and its use. London: Facet Publishing
IXXUS. (2019). Semantic Enrichment. Retrieved from https://www.ixxus.com/solutions/semantic-enrichment/
Kroeger, A. (2013). The road to BIBFRAME: The evolution of the idea of bibliographic transition into a post-MARC future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(8),
873-890. doi:10.1080/01639374.2013.823584
Lagoze, C. (2010). Lost identity: The assimilation of digital libraries into the web Available from Lost Identity: the Assimilation of Digital Libraries into the Web.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.cornell.edu/lagoze/dissertation/CarlLagoze.pdf
Library of Congress. (2019). ID.LOC.GOV – Linked Data Service. Retrieved from http://id.loc.gov/
Meadows, A. (2019). Better metadata could help save the world! Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/06/11/better-metadata-
could-help-save-the-world/
Metadata2020.org Retrieved from http://www.metadata2020.org/
Mitchell, E. T., PhD. (2015). The current state of linked data in libraries, archives, and museums. Library Technology Reports, 52(1), 16,2.
Nielsen, J. (2001). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Retrieved from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
O'Beirne, R. (2017). Academic libraries, open access and digital scholarship–a Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).
Park, J., Richards, L. and Brenza, A. (2018), "Benefits and challenges of BIBFRAME", Library Hi Tech, Vol. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-08-2017-0176
Pennington, D. R., & In Spiteri, L. F. (2019). Social tagging in a linked data environment. London: Facet Publishing.
Perrin, J. M., Clark, M., De-Leon, E., and Edgar, L. (2014). Usability Testing for Greater Impact: A Primo Case Study. Information Technology and
Libraries, 33(4), pp. 57–66. Retrieved from: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/5174
Perruso, C. (2015). Undergraduates' Use of Google vs. Library Resources: A Four-Year Cohort Study. Retrieved: http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2015/11/05/crl15-
826.full.pdf
Tammaro, A. M. (2016). Heritage curation in the digital age: Professional challenges and opportunities. International Information & Library Review, 48(2), 122-128.
doi:10.1080/10572317.2016.1176454
Ullah, I., Khusro, S., Ullah, A., & Naeem, M. (2018). An Overview of the Current State of Linked and Open Data in Cataloging. Information Technology and
Libraries, 37(4), 47-80. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v37i4.10432
van Hooland, S., & Verborgh, R. (2014). Linked data for libraries, archives and museums: How to clean, link and publish your metadata. London: Facet Publishing.
Xu, A., Hess, K., & Akerman, L. (2018). From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0: Crosswalks. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(2-3), 224-250.
doi:10.1080/01639374.2017.1388326
Zeng, M. L., & Qin, J. (2016). Metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.
Cutter, C. A. (1962). Rules for a dictionary catalog. Washington: Government printing office.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). The five laws of library science. Madras: Madras Library Association.
http://aims.fao.org/activity/blog/five-laws-library-science-detailing-principles-operating-library-system
IFLA (2009). STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf
Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.
According to Meadows (2019), Metadata2020.org project Chair, there are several players involved in the metadata creation and management process, which is referred as four Cs, namely “Metadata Creators, who provide descriptive information (metadata) about research and scholarly outputs; Metadata Curators who classify, normalize, and standardize this descriptive information to increase its value as a resource; Metadata Custodians who store and maintain this descriptive information and make it available for consumers; and Metadata Consumers who knowingly or unknowingly use the descriptive information to find, discover, connect, and cite research and scholarly outputs”. The metadata creation and enriching process happens at various stages of the information resource life cycle. In theory, metadata creation and enhancement (metadata enriching) is a continuous process and it involves authors, publishers, suppliers, librarians and users. Unfortunately in current practice, users are not allowed to add metadata. This is partly due to assumptions that user metadata is considered of low quality and that its management is problematic. In addition, current platforms fail to support user-generated metadata. However, as the size of collections in libraries grows, it is not feasible to describe every information resource in a manner that reflects the terminologies as used by users so as to therefore achieve optimal discoverability. With the development of the Web 2.0 paradigm, new opportunities arise to involve users in the metadata creation process.
In the example given in Figure #, the book talks at length about the grim account of the poisoning and death of Alexander Litvinenko. However, the name does not feature in the title, author or keyword fields of the bibliographic record – that means students wanting to write an essay about Litvinenko would not be able to discover this book. Metadata enriching for this means to add the name Litvinenko somewhere in the metadata to be indexed. If this would come from a name authority file, the better, if not, it can be added in the table of contents.
Similarly, students who are asked to write an essay about a particular ship wreck, i.e Costa Concordia would not be able to find the following book had it not be indexed with the name of the ship involved in the accident.
Discovery and its functions (faceted search, search terms, special collections discovery)
Library users are presented with a burgeoning size of information resources with multiple formats, versions, editions, genres and adaptations. These resources are purchased, licensed and made accessible by a single institution such as a university library, they are sourced from multiple content providers, each with its own peculiar platform and access regimes – some for example require users to create separate and unique accounts to login, others could be accessed via IP recognition, and others through a WAYFless/Shibboleth access. While the role of the library as a physical space learning and social space is still essential, the range of resources available electronically make it all the more an important virtual space where 24/7, on and off campus seamless access to these resources is expected by the users. Eighty percent the library resource budget is spent on electronic resources such as databases, e-books and e-journals. The return on investment is tied with the usage and impact of these resources. Without accurate, consistent and quality metadata on the one hand, and an easy-to-use and effective discovery service on the other, these resources may remain invisible and inaccessible to the user. Metadata created and enhanced through the library management system is used by the discovery system to index, retrieve, sort and filter information resources. While the system side of the discovery is essential, as in any other front-facing interface, its success relies on how users actually interact with it. In the end, it is judged by the impact it brings to the user.
So enriching could be as simple as adding relevant keywords to a book’s metadata record to involving users to enhance librarian created metadata or as complex as combining and matching multiple ontologies to describe millions of information objects. Enriching could be done by people or using complex algorithms and machine learning techniques or both.