Metadata Change: Meeting the Evolving Requirements. Oksana L. Zavalina Priya Kizhakkethil. Daniel Gelaw Alemneh Mark E. Phillips Hannah Tarver

Transcription

1 ICKM 2014, Antalya, Turkey Metadata Change: Meeting the Evolving Requirements Oksana L. Zavalina Priya Kizhakkethil (UNT ischool) Daniel Gelaw Alemneh Mark E. Phillips Hannah Tarver (UNT Libraries)

2 2 Metadata in knowledge management Wis dom Capacity to take appropriate action on basis of knowledge Knowledge Fully internalized information Described/ represented with metadata Information Data Data organized and set into a context Unorganized, unprocessed facts / observations (Rowland, 2007)

3 3 Metadata in data curation lifecycle Metadata for discovery and reuse (Higgins, 2008)

4 4 Background of the study 1. Change in metadata records over time to keep up with environmental changes: Growth in certain types/formats and subject matter of materials in repositories Changes in the content & location of fluid materials (e.g., linkrot in websites) Goals of hosting & contributing institutions KOS: classification systems & controlled vocabularies National & international standards for record creation.

5 5 Background of the study 1. Change in metadata records over time to keep up with environmental changes (Thornburg & Oskins, 2007): Growth in certain types/formats and subject matter of materials in repositories Changes in the content & location of fluid materials (e.g., websites) Goals of hosting & contributing institutions KOS: classification systems & controlled vocabularies National & international standards for record creation. 2. Metadata change to improve quality encouraged by bibliographic utilities (OCLC, RLIN, etc.)

6 6 Background of the study (2) Metadata quality criteria suggested (over 20): Access Accuracy Availability Compactness Compatibility Completeness Comprehensiveness Content Consistency Cost Data structure Ease of creation Ease of Use Economy Flexibility Fitness for Use Informativeness Protocols Quantity Reliability Standard Timeliness Transfer Usability

7 7 Background of the study (2) Most important metadata quality criteria (Park & Tosaka, 2010): Access Accuracy Availability Compactness Compatibility Completeness Comprehensiveness Content Consistency Cost Data structure Ease of creation Ease of Use Economy Flexibility Fitness for Use Informativeness Protocols Quantity Reliability Standard Timeliness Transfer Usability

8 8 Background of the study (2) Metadata quality criteria (3 most important): Accuracy Format and formatting errors Spelling and typographical errors Have accepted methods been used for creation or extraction of metadata? What has been done to ensure valid values and structure? Are default values appropriate, and have they been appropriately used? Completeness Number of elements per record Practice of presenting blank elements Utilization and selected characteristics of mandatory and optional elements Does the element set completely describe the objects? Are all relevant elements used for each object? (Moen, Stuart, & McClure, 1998; Bruce & Hillmann, 2004) Logical Consistency/ Coherence Are values in metadata elements consistent throughout? How does it compare with other data within the community? (Bruce & Hillmann, 2004)

9 9 Background of the study (3) Link between metadata change and metadata quality Planning for metadata change to improve metadata quality and facilitate data/information discovery and reuse need for common terminology no metadata change categorization available CS literature offers categorization of change in graphs, trees, ontologies etc. (Bille, 2005; Gao et al., 2009; Klein & Noy, 2003; Maynard et al., 2007) 3 major change types: Add, Delete, Modify

10 Our Initial Framework of Metadata Change 11/26/2014 Zavalina et al. ICKM Anecdotal evidence Brainstorming

11 11 Testing the framework Digital repository that archives versions of metadata records: UNT Digital Collections UNT Digital Library (incl. institutional repository) Portal to Texas History Gateway to Oklahoma History Random stratified sample of metadata records Different types of materials from different collections 157 records, 2 versions of each: initial and latest (April 2014) Locally-modified Dublin Core metadata scheme Native XML format In-depth manual comparative content analysis

12 % Distribution of Change Categories in 21 Metadata Elements 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% DELETIONS (total; % of records) ADDITIONS (total; % of records) MODIFICATIONS (total; % of records)

13 13 Metadata Change: Record Example 1 Slide text Field qualifier

14 14 Metadata Change: Record Example 2 Slide text Empty field / subfield Deletion of field instance

15 15 Metadata Change: Record Example 2 Slide text Empty field / subfield Field instance/ data value addition Deletion of field instance

16 16 Metadata Change: Record Example 2 Slide text Transposition of subfieds (modification) Empty field / subfield Field instance/ data value addition Data value modification: amendment Deletion of field instance

17 17 Metadata Change: Record Example 3 Slide text Empty subfield Empty field

18 Metadata Change: Record Example 3 Slide text Empty field Empty subfield Field instance / data value addition (KOS) 11/26/2014 Zavalina et al. ICKM

19 Metadata Change: Record Example 3 Slide text Data value modification: replacement Empty field Empty subfield Field instance / data value addition (KOS) 11/26/2014 Zavalina et al. ICKM

20 Metadata Change: Record Example 3 Slide text Data value modification: replacement Data value modification: transposition Empty field Empty subfield Field instance / data value addition (KOS) 11/26/2014 Zavalina et al. ICKM

21 21 Metadata Change: Record Example 4 Slide text Populated field Empty field

22 22 Metadata Change: Record Example 4 Slide text Populated field Subfield addition Empty field Field instance / data value addition

23 23 Metadata Change: Record Example 4 Slide text Populated field Subfield addition Empty field Field qualifier addition Field instance / data value addition

24 24 Metadata Change: Record Example 4 Slide text Populated field Subfield addition Empty field Field qualifier addition Populating empty field Field instance / data value addition

25 25 Metadata Change: Record Example 4 Slide text Populated field Subfield addition Data value modification: amendment Empty field Field qualifier addition Populating empty field Field instance / data value addition

26 26 Metadata Change Framework (Revised) Slide text

27 27 Metadata Change & Metadata Quality Completeness? Accuracy? Completeness? Accuracy? Consistency?

28 28 Summary A good digital collection is sustainable over time. Maintaining high quality metadata about every digital object requires a framework to carry out quality assurance measures during entire lifecycle. Ensuring metadata quality -- interoperability, completeness, consistency, or accuracy -- necessitates some sort of changes. Understanding the changes and managing high quality metadata requires a cyclical process that balances the evolving and sometimes conflicting needs and requirements.

29 29 29 Our view: Share metadata Create/ Receive metadata Change / Improve metadata (adapted from Higgins, 2008)

30 30 Future Research Test the framework in various contexts using a variety of metadata schemes

31 31 Future Research Test the framework in various contexts digital libraries digital repositories: research products (publications, presentations etc.) research data bibliographic databases (e.g., WorldCat) using a variety of metadata schemes

32 32 Future Research (2) Refine mapping of metadata change categories and subcategories to 3 major metadata quality criteria Map metadata change categories and subcategories to a wider set of (more specific) metadata quality criteria

33 33 Cited Works Bille, P. (2005). A survey on tree edit distance and related problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 337(1-3), Bruce, T.R., & Hillmann, D.I. (2004). The continuum of metadata quality: defining, expressing, exploiting. In Hillman, D. and Westbrook, L. (Eds.), Metadata in Practice. Chicago: American Library Association, pp Gao, X., Xiao, B., Tao, D., & Li, X. (2009). A survey of graph edit distance. Pattern Analysis and Applications, 13(1), Higgins, S. (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), Klein, M., & Noy, N. (2003). A component-based framework for ontology evolution. In Workshop on Ontologies and Distributed Systems. Retrieved from _A_Component- Based_Framework_for_Ontology_Evolution Moen, W.E., Stewart, E.L, & McClure, C.R. (1998). The Role of Content Analysis in Evaluating Metadata for the U.S. Government Information Locator Service (GILS): Results from an Exploratory Study. Retrieved from: Noy, N., Kunnatur, S., Klein, M., & Musen, M. (2004). Tracking changes during ontology evolution. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3298, Park, J. & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata quality control in digital repositories and collections: criteria, semantics, and mechanisms. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48 (8), Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2), Thornburg, G., & Oskins, M. (2007). Misinformation and bias in metadata processing: Matching in large databases. Information Technology and Libraries, 26 (2),

34 Teşekkür ederim Questions? Comments? Ideas? Oksana L. Zavalina: