Comments on IFLA Metadata Guidelines
National Library of Australia comments on the draft for
worldwide review of Guidance on the Structure, Content, and Application of Metadata
Records for Digital Resources and Collections
from the IFLA Cataloguing Section Working Group on
the Use of Metadata Schemas. Compiled by Deirdre Kiorgaard.
The National Library of Australia thanks the Working Group for the opportunity to comment on this draft, and supports the Working Group in its efforts to provide guidance on metadata for digital resources. We have made specific comments on specific aspects of the draft report below, and these are organised under the section names used in the draft report.
Introduction
The National Library of Australia acknowledges that the Working Group's initial objective of creating an inventory of implementations is no longer feasible, and supports the revised objective of maintaining links on the IFLA site to commonly used metadata schemas. We agree that the schemas referenced in this report are those that it would be most useful to point to from the IFLA site, and to use in any further development of the common core of metadata elements.
An additional schema, which should be mentioned in this report, is the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS). It is intended both for the creation of original resource description records, and to carry selected MARC21 data. It would be productive for the Working Group to keep in touch with the development of MODS.
Throughout the report TEI has been mentioned as a metadata schema, however it would be more appropriate to replace these references with TEI header.
The National Library also agrees that continuing the dialogue with the DCMI Libraries Working Group on the Library Applications Profile would be worthwhile.
Using Metadata in Libraries or Other Information-Intensive Organizations
The National Library of Australia agrees with the Working Group's conclusion that it is appropriate to provide context and guidance, rather than formal guidelines. However, we consider that thinking in terms of "metadata versus bibliographic records" creates a dichotomy that is unhelpful, and that it is more useful to think about metadata as a continuum. Instead of a library taking the approach that it has a digital collection that requires metadata records, it may be more constructive to take the approach that the library has resources that require descriptions. This will help avoid the false perception that digital resources require metadata records, whereas other resources require bibliographic records.
Perhaps Objective 2 could be re-phrased as 'to provide guidance to libraries on evaluating and selecting a metadata schema or schemas'. General guidance could be given on evaluating the suitability of existing metadata schemas for a particular purpose, including the examination of the need for particular data elements. Libraries could apply that guidance to any metadata schema, including MARC records. Advice on what to consider when devising local extensions to an existing schema, or in devising and maintaining a local schema could also be provided.
A key part of this guidance would be to emphasise the importance of using appropriate existing or emerging standards, and recognised schema, wherever possible. This will facilitate interoperability, and make it more likely that there is support for the ongoing development and maintenance of a schema.
Initiating a Metadata Project
Many libraries or other organisations will initiate a project that involves the creation and/or publication of the electronic resources being described by the metadata. For these organisations it would be useful to reference guidelines on best practices for creating web resources (such as those on the National Initiatives for Networked Cultural Heritage site, accessed 15/12/2003) and for digitising library materials (such as Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and Serials, accessed 15/12/2003; and other standards noted later in relation to technical metadata).
- General Metadata Record Types or Structures
Some comments follow on the specific categories of metadata given in the report. The comments include both additional elements, and two additional categories of metadata, i.e. preservation metadata, and structural metadata. Although the categorisation is, in itself, very useful, further information on what might be covered by each element could also be provided.
One general point that relates to many of the individual metadata elements is that they may be controlled by standardised code lists or controlled vocabularies, and the source of those data elements can also be recorded in the metadata. The standards used in the creation of particular data elements might also need to be recorded. Information about the metadata record itself should also be included.
Descriptive metadata
Metadata on the source of the descriptive metadata, either as a whole, or for individual elements such as audience level or language, may also be required. Some specific comments related to particular data elements follow:
- Titles and creators
There may also be a need to identify a main title and main creator, both for identification of the resource, and for establishing relationships. Information on the role of the creator may also be required.
- Dates
This is the only date element included in any category. However, there may be a need to record multiple dates associated with the resource, as is noted later in the draft report under section 3.2 Core record elements and definitions. They may include the date of creation, date of publication, date of reformatting, date of modification of content, dates of coverage, and dates related to the currency of information.
- Physical media; format; etc.
The metadata would also need to include information about the hardware and software required to use a resource.
- Version
Information on the currency of the version (e.g. dates), and on other versions which exist, may also be useful.
- Additional elements
There may be a need to record metadata about relationships, for example aggregates or collections to which the described resource belongs. Provenance information may be important for some types of resources.
- Unique identifiers (ISBN; ISSN; etc.) and Dynamic links
(URI; URL; etc.)
Special mention needs to be made of the use of unique and persistent identifiers which apply to the digital object itself, and to the need for persistence in dynamic links so that the links to the resource will continue to work even if it is moved.
It would be useful to reference existing schemes, as given in Object identifier initiatives. It might also be useful to reference documents which describe the general principles behind their application (for example, Managing Web Resources for Persistent Access or A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections (Accessed 15/12/2003)).
Analytical metadata
As noted under previously, information on the source of the metadata, such as classification codes and controlled subject terms may also be required. The advantages of using a controlled vocabulary to promote consistency and facilitate searching should be emphasised.
Rights management metadata
As noted previously, information on the source of metadata, such as the source of a rating may also be required. The expiry date for restrictions on use or copyright restrictions may also be useful, as would be data on any actions taken to ascertain copyright status.
Technical metadata
It would be useful to reference emerging standards in relation to technical metadata such as the draft NISO standard, Data Dictionary for Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images (not accessible Apr 08). Acknowledgement also needs to be made of the need to have a mechanism to ensure continued access to the resource through migration, emulation or technology preservation (see Trusted digital repositories: attributes and responsibilities: an RLG/OCLC report
, accessed 15/12/03).Preservation metadata
This category of metadata has been omitted from the Working Group's draft report, but it is essential for continued access to the digital resources. Broadly, the preservation metadata should include information on the original copy for a digital reproduction; information related to other copies made such as master or preservation copies and access or use copies; any processes applied to a resource; and preservation actions. It would be useful to reference preservation metadata element sets such as the National Library of Australia's Preservation Metadata for Digital Collections and the RLG PRESERV element set (Accessed 15/12/2003).
Structural metadata
This category of metadata has been omitted from the Working Group's draft report, but it is essential for access and display of parts of items, and in management and preservation.
- Titles and creators
Selecting a Metadata Schema or Schemas
As noted in the report, there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution. However, the National Library of Australia is concerned that the guidelines treat all options as equal, and do not actively promote the benefits of using, or building on, standards-based metadata and existing schema where possible.
Given the context of the objective 2, which was to provide guidance on when to use metadata records versus when to use catalogue records, it might be worthwhile to limit the scope of the guidelines to shareable metadata. In this context, the creation of local schema should be employed only when available schemas have been rejected as they demonstrably do not meet organisational needs. Institutions also need to have full awareness of the resources required to develop and maintain a local schema, and to develop exchange crosswalks to facilitate data sharing.
It might assist libraries in their decision making if guidance were given firstly on evaluating the suitability of an existing metadata schema to a particular purpose, and then secondly on what to consider when devising local extensions to an existing schema, or in devising and maintaining a local schema.
The questions enumerated in this section relate to several categories of requirements, and it may be helpful to group them accordingly. Both the first group of questions, and the preceding paragraph on granularity relate to 'fitness for purpose', or specifically, to the nature of the data elements required for a specific application. As such, they could be included as general principles related to the specific categories of metadata given in 2.1. The second group of questions relate to requirements related to resource sharing and interoperability. The third group relate to standards and confidence in the authority of the schema. The final question relates to operational considerations within an organisation.
We note the recommendation that "Where an in-house approach is selected, the Working Group recommends that the core record framework (see Section 3.2) be used as both a starting point and a minimum standard for metadata content". We consider that this recommendation may be premature, and refer the Working Group to our later comments on the core record framework.
Choosing between Metadata and Bibliographic Records
Although the discussion in this section is descriptive of the choices libraries are making, and the possibilities that exist, the format of this section could not be used easily by a library choosing a metadata schema.
One of the questions posed in this section of the report is whether the digital collection will be integrated with other databases of electronic materials. This is too narrow a focus, as consideration also needs to be given as to whether integrated access to all of an institution's collections is desirable. This need is most apparent when individual resources are held in both electronic and print form, as with digitised resources. Libraries may find that the best path is to apply their existing standards for bibliographic description to all resources, and to convert their records into other schema as needed.
The role of data conversion between schemas is not adequately addressed. This approach has been used successfully in collaborative resource discovery projects, Australian examples of which include PictureAustralia and MusicAustralia.
Metadata Core Record Framework
The National Library of Australia acknowledges the considerable efforts of the Working Group in creating the master crosswalk, and considers that the crosswalk will be a useful tool for libraries in evaluating and comparing schemas, and in mapping across these schemas. We recommend that the Working Group also monitor the work on ISO 8459 Information and documentation -- Bibliographic data element directory. Part 5: Data elements for the exchange of cataloguing and metadata.
We recognise the work done by the Working Group in deriving the core record framework or "core of cores". However, we do not believe that the Working Group's purpose in creating this metadata core record framework, or its intended application(s), are clear at this stage. It would be beneficial if the Working Group were to more closely define the community the core would serve, and the activities it would support.
It was not clear from this report whether the core record framework was intended as a core metadata record, or as a checklist for evaluating an existing metadata schema. If intended as a core metadata record, the complex needs of libraries etc. are unlikely to be met by any limited set of unqualified core elements, as they would lack the structure and definition required for such applications. If intended as a checklist for evaluating an existing metadata schema, it might be better to pursue a more thorough listing of elements that might be required for different applications. Please also refer to our earlier comments under General Metadata Record Types or Structures. Because of these reservations we have not attempted to comment on the ten-element set in this response.
We would recommend that the Working Group re-evaluate and re-formulate their third objective before proceeding to address the list of issues remaining to be addressed or resolved under 3.3 Potential applications for the common core record. The Group needs to satisfy themselves that there is a definite and distinctive role for the metadata core framework, given that schemas which are also intended to represent 'core' elements already exist and have been widely adopted.
We note the recommendation that "... national libraries and other bibliographic or cataloguing agencies consider adopting the ten element common core framework as a standard metadata record structure for organizing digital resources, including those submitted to national library collections under legal deposit". The National Library of Australia is committed to collaboration with others in the development, promotion and implementation of standards, both nationally and internationally. We use existing standards both for resources published on our Web site (see Website Metadata Strategies and Guidelines, accessed 15/12/2003), and for digital reproductions created or collected by the library (see National Library of Australia Cataloguing Policy , accessed 15/10/2007)). The standards and schema currently employed in the description of digital resources at the National Library of Australia would include the ten core elements.
