Metadata Standards Directory

Transcription

1 Metadata Standards Directory WORKING GROUP Metadata Standards Directory Alex Ball University of Bath RDA Europe Webinar 16 February 2016

2 Outline Motivation: Why use metadata standards, and why many don t Prior work: Finding a perfect match Methodology: The Working Group Results: The Metadata Standards Directory Next steps: The Metadata Standards Catalog Acknowledgements

3 Why should I use a metadata standard?

4 Better discovery versus

5 Better context versus

6 Better reuse versus

7 Better ecosystem Less working things out from scratch More complete metadata Benefits of practising Better documentation of the standards Concentration of development attention and effort Better time-saving tools etc., etc.

8 So why doesn t everyone use a metadata standard? 1 2 3

9 No suitable standard? Metadata standards used None 56.1% My lab 22.1% ISO 8.0% Open GIS 8.0% EML 7.9% FDGC 7.9% Other 6.8% DC 2.2% DwC 1.7% DIF 1.0% Responses (N = 1205/1329) Figure: Metadata for scientific data (Source: Tenopir et al. 2011) Back Forward

10 Too many standards? (Source: cbn Randall Munroe) The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from Tanenbaum (1988) Back Forward

11 Isn t that, like, really hard? Just fill out this simple form <mods xmlns=" xmlns:xsi=" xsi:schemalocation=" <titleinfo> <title> Title goes here </title> </titleinfo> <name type="personal"> <namepart>author name goes here</namepart> <role> <roleterm type="text">author</roleterm> </role> </name> <typeofresource>dataset</typeofresource> <genre>dataset</genre> <origininfo> <publisher>publisher name goes here</publisher> </origininfo> <language> <languageterm type="text">language name</languageterm> <languageterm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">iso 639-2b code</languageterm> </language> <physicaldescription> <internetmediatype>mime type goes here, repeat as necessary</internetmediatype> <digitalorigin>born digital</digitalorigin> <extent>number of records in your database, or size of file in bytes</extent> </physicaldescription> <abstract> Abstract goes here </abstract> <subject authority="scheme name goes here"> <topic>keyword goes here, repeat as necessary</topic> <cartographics>spatial coordinates<cartographics/> <temporal>temporal extente</temporal> <geographic>spatial extent in words</geographic> </subject> <identifier>id goes here</identifier> <location> <url usage="primary display" access="object in context">location of record</url> <url access="raw object">location for download</url> </location> <accesscondition type="useandreproduction"> Usage restrictions or permissions </accesscondition> <relateditem ID="relatedMaterials"> <location> <url usage="primary display" access="object in context">record of related item</url> </location> </relateditem> <note type="citation"> Sample citation goes here </note> <note type="software">required software goes here</note> <subject ID="location" displaylabel="description of spatial extent again"> <cartographics> <coordinates> List of coordinates, comma separated </coordinates> </cartographics> <topic>type of coordinates goes here</topic> </subject> </mods> Back Forward

12 Science Data Literacy Project

13 Scientific Data Application Profile Scoping Study Scientific Data Application Profile Scoping Study Report www. ukoln. ac. uk/ projects/ sdapss/ Document details Author: Alexander Ball, UKOLN, University of Bath Date: 3rd June 2009 Version: 1.1 Document Name: sdapss.pdf Notes: Changes from version 1.0: Typographical corrections made. References added. Conclusions expanded.

14 ural Objects Weak mi-weak CanCore, GEM, IEEE/LOM, MIX, MuseumDat, TGN, XMP AGLS, APPM, Atom, CIDOC/CRM, DACS, EAC-CPF, EAD, ISAAR(CPF), ISAD(G), MPEG-7, OAI-ORE, RSS, SCORM, Topic Maps AACR2, DCAM, DDC, indecs, ISBD, LCC, Linked Data, MADS, MARC, MARC Relator Codes, MARCXML, METS Rights, MODS, OAI-PMH, OAIS, ODRL, PREMIS, RAD, RDA, RDF, RELAX NG, Sears List of Subject Headings, SGML, SKOS, SMIL, SRU, XOBIS, XQuery, XrML AES Process History, CanCore, DTD, FGDC/CSDGM, GEM, METS Rights, OAI-ORE, PB SGML, TGN, XQuery WA Lite, CIDOC/CRM, DACS, DwC, EAC-CPF, AAR(CPF), ISO 19115, Linked Data, X NG, RSS, SKOS, Topic Maps, ULAN 7, MusicXML, MXF, ODRL, RAD, SMIL, VSO Data Model, XMP, XRML Datasets Cultural Objects MARCTechnical Metadata MathML, MIX CanCore, EAC-CPF, EAD, GEM, IEEE/LOM, ISAAR(CPF), ISAD(G), MARCXML, ODRL, Ontology for Media Resource, SCORM, TGN, AACR2, Topic Maps AGLS, Atom, BISAC, DACS, DCAM, DDC, FRBR, indecs, LCC, Linked Data, MADS, MARC, MARC Relator Codes, METS Rights, MODS, PREMIS, PRISM, RDF, RELAX NG, RSS, Sears List of Subject AGLS, APPM, Headings, SGML, SKOS, XMP, Atom, DACS, XOBIS, XQuery, XrML EAC-CPF, EAD, ISAAR(CPF), ISAD(G), LCSH, MARC, AACR2, CanCore, MARCXML, CIDOC/CRM, DCAM, GEM, OAI-ORE, RSS, IEEE/LOM, indecs, ISBD, Linked Data, SCORM, Sears MADS, MARC Relator Codes, METS List of Subject Headings, Topic Rights, MODS, MPEG-7, MuseumDat, Maps NewsML, ODRL, PREMIS, RAD, RDA, RDF, RELAX NG, SGML, SKOS, SMIL, XMP, XOBIS, XQuery, XrML DTD, OAI-PMH, VRA Core, XML, XMLSchema, XPath, XQuery, XSLT Datasets Cultural Objects Atom, DC, DCAM, FOAF, indecs, Linked Data, MIX, MODS, OAI-ORE, OAIS, PREMIS, QDC, RDF, RSS, SGML, SKOS, TGM I, TGM II, Topic Maps DDC, FRBR, LCC AACR2, AES Core Audio, AES Process History, APPM, CanCore, DACS, DDC, DwC, EAC-CPF, EAD, FGDC/CSDGM, FRBR, GEM, IEEE/LOM, ISAAR(CPF), ISAD(G), ISO 19115, KML, LCC, LCSH, MADS, MARC Relator Codes, MESH, METS, METS Rights, MPEG-7, ODRL, PB Core, RAD, RDA, RELAX NG, SMIL, SRU, TEI, TextMD, XMP, XOBIS, XrML, Z39.50 Datasets Cultural Objects Technical Metadata The sheer number of metadata standards in the cultural heritage sector is overwhelming, and their inter-relationships further complicate the situation. This visual map of the metadata landscape is intended to assist planners with the selection and implementation of metadata standards. Each of the 105 standards listed here is evaluated on its strength of application to defined categories in each of four axes: community, domain, function, and purpose. The strength of a standard in a given category is determined by a mixture of its adoption in that category, its design intent, and its overall appropriateness for use in that category. The standards represented here are among those most heavily used or publicized in the cultural heritage community, though certainly not all standards that might be relevant are included. A small subset of the standards plotted on the main visualization also appear as highlights above the graphic. These represent the most commonly known or discussed standards for cultural heritage metadata. Datasets Cultural Objects Work funded by the Indiana University Librariesí White Professional Development Award This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License < Stars represent those standards that are used most often. Archives Strength of Standardís connection indicated by Font Size & Color Saturation TEIR Technical Metadata Strong connection Semi-Strong connection Weak Connection Font Size = Starís strength for given category OAIS CDWA, MPEG-21 DIDL, VRA Core Sliver = Category The standards listed closest to the center of a sliver are those that are most strongly connected to the given category. CDWA, DC, GILS, ISAD(G), ISBD, MARC, MARCXML, MODS, QDC, TEI, VRA Core IEEE/LOM, ISAD(G), NewsML, SKOS GML MPEG-21 DIDL, MXF AACR2, AES Core Audio, CCO, DC, EAC-CPF, EML, IEEE/LOM, MIX, MODS, NewsML, ODRL, ONIX, PB Core, RAD, RDA, TextMD, XrML AGLS, CanCore ISAAR(CPF), ISBD, RDF EML, MEI, MusicXML, NewsML, SGML, XML MEI, MusicXML, OAI-ORE, TEI GEM, METS Rights, QDC, VRA Core PRISM Datasets Cultural Objects Atom, OpenURL, RDF, RSS, SGML, VSO Data Model, XML, XMP Technical Metadata Atom, RSS, SKOS ta SGML, XML ADL, TEI, XMP OAIS Datasets Cultural Objects SGML, XML KML, NewsML Seeing Standards Musical Materials oving Images Geospatial Data Archives nformation Industry trong Scholarly Texts Visual Resources LCSH Libraries Museums Controlled Vocabulary Descriptive Metadata Musical Materials Moving Images Geospatial Data Archives Musical Materials L, AES Core Audio, Process History, DTD, FRBR, ID3,, MEI, METS, MO, -21 DIDL, DC, DTD, XML, MXF, ISBD, LCSH, MESH, gy for Media METS, MPEG-21 DIDL, e, PB Core, OAI-ORE, OAI-PMH, L, XML OAIS, ONIX, OpenURL, XPath, QDC, SRU, SWAP, TEI, 50 TextMD, XML, XML AAT, CCO, Schema, XPath, CDWA, CDWA Lite, XSLT, Z39.50 DC, DIG35, DTD, METS, MIX, MPEG-21 DIDL, OAI-PMH, OAIS, Ontology for Media Resource, PB Core, QDC, SRU, TGM I, TGM II, TGN, ULAN, VRA Core, XML, XML Schema, XPath, XSLT, Z39.50 AAT, CCO, CDWA, CDWA Lite, CIDOC/CRM, MuseumDat, SPECTRUM, TGN, ULAN` S, RAD, D, GILS, CSH, C, MARC s, MARCXML,, MIX, MODS, AIS, OpenURL, A, Sears List of ings, SRU, SWAP, TEI, I, TGM II, VRA Core, hema, XOBIS, XPath, Strong Scholarly Texts Visual Resources Libraries Libraries Record Format Content Standard Rights Metadata Structural Metadata Descriptive Metadata Structure Standard Museums Semi-Strong Scholarly Texts Semi-Weak Musical Materials Moving Images Geospatial Data Scholarly Texts Archives Information Industry Visual Resources METS Libraries Weak Museums Record Format Structure Standard Metadata Wrappers Structural Metadata Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe Visual Resources Musical Materials Moving Images Geospatial Data ArchivesMODS Libraries Visual Resources Scholarly Texts Museums Content Standard Record Format Controlled Vocabulary Rights Metadata Descriptive Metadata Structure Standard Structural Metadata LEGEND Summary and Purpose Musical Materials Moving Images Geospatial Data Archives Visual Resources Scholarly Texts Information Industry Content: Jenn Riley Design: Devin Becker Copyright Jenn Riley Scholarly Texts Libraries Information Industry Museums Markup Language Content Standard Framework/Technology Record Format OAI-PMHRights Metadata Record Format Structural Metadata Descriptive Metadata ights Metadata Strong Connection Libraries Museums Semi-Weak Connection Semi-Strong Connection Descriptive Metadata Content Standard Conceptual Model Data Scholarly Texts Libraries Controlled Vocabulary Information IndustryONIX Weak Semi-Weak Record Format Structure Standard Structural Metadata Descriptive Metadata Rights Metadata Semi-Strong Musical Materials Moving Images Geospatial Data Information Industry Controlled Vocabulary Descriptive Metadata Visual Resources Scholarly Texts ArchivesQDC Libraries Museums Controlled Vocabulary Content Standard Record Format Structure Standard Structural Metadata Descriptive Metadata Rights Metadata EAD DCAM, GM DTD, Linked Data, M OAI-ORE, OAI-PMH, M OpenURL, RDF, RELAX NG, SGML, AAT, BISAC, DDC, SRU, Topic LCC, LCSH, MARC Maps, XML, Relator Codes, MESH, XML Schem Sears List of Subject XPath, Headings, TGM I, TGM II, XQue TGN, ULAN XS AACR2, APPM, CCO, DACS, RAD, RDA CIDOC/CRM, FRAD, FRBR, FRSAD, indecs, OAIS, VSO Data Model sical Materials Moving Images Geospatial Data Archives cholarly Texts Atom, KML, MathML, RSS AACR2, AAT, AGLS, APPM, BISAC, CanCore, CCO, CDWA, CDWA Lite, CIDOC/CRM DACS, DC, DCAM, DDC, DIF, DIG35, DwC, EAC-CPF, EAD, EML FGDC/CSDGM, FOAF, FRAD, FRBR, FRSAD, GEM, GILS, GML, IEEE/LOM, indecs, ISAAR(CPF), ISAD(G), ISBD, ISO 19115, LC LCSH, Linked Data, MADS, MARC, MARC Relator Codes, MARCXML, MESH, MO, MODS, MPEG-7, MuseumDat, NewsML, OAI-PMH, ONIX, Ontology for Media Resource, PB Core, PRISM, QDC, RAD, RDA, SCORM, Sears List of Subject Headings, SKOS, SPECTRUM, SRU, SWAP, TGM I, MET TGM II, TGN, Topic Maps, ULAN, MPEG VRA Core, XOBIS, DIDL, M Z39.50 SCORM R Metadata Wrappers Pr M al Reso Information Industry Markup Language Framework/ Technology Strong Libraries www. dlib. indiana. edu/ ~jenlrile/ metadatamap/

15 BioSharing biosharing. org/ standards/

16 MMI Content Standard References marinemetadata. org/ conventions/ content- standards

17 GEOSS Standards and Interoperability Registry earthobservations.org/gci_sr.shtml

18 CINERGI earthcube. org/ group/ cinergi

19 MSDWG Goals 1. Develop an RDA Metadata Standards Directory listing standards relevant for research data Comprehensive Easy for anyone to contribute or update 2. Define and develop use cases for research metadata 3. Develop a plan for long-term growth and maintenance of the directory

20 Stakeholder engagement Stakeholders researchers data managers data scientists research support staff tool developers repositories funders publishers Outreach CAMP-4-DATA at DC-2013, Lisbon: 26 participants from 15 countries International Digital Curation Conference 2014, San Francisco (A. Ball) RDA-EU Working Group Core Meeting, 2014, Garching, Munich (J. Greenberg) Working Group mailing list

21 required for data re-use. This page provides links to information about these disciplinary metadata standards, including profiles, tools to implement the standards, and use cases of data repositories currently implementing them. Disciplinary Metadata Catalogue For those disciplines that have not yet settled on a metadata standard, and for those repositories that work with data across disciplines, the General Research Data section links to information about broader metadata standards that have been adapted to suit the needs of research data. Search by Discipline Biology Earth Science General Research Data Physical Science Search by Resource Type Social Science & Humanities Metadata Standards Specifications for the minimum information that should be collected about research data in order for it to be re-used. Profiles and Extensions Standards that have been adapted for use in particular types of repositories, or for particular types of data. Use cases Institutional repositories and data portals using standards to determine which metadata should be collected upon data deposit. Tools Software that has been developed to capture or store metadata conforming to a specific standard. resources/ metadata- standards See Ball (2013) for details

22 Issues to address UK selection bias Incompleteness Conduct a worldwide survey to fill in the gaps Process for maintenance slow and opaque Little scope for future development Migrate to a new platform to make it easier and more transparent to contribute support a larger team of volunteer editors allow for future development

23 MSDWG Survey Conducted by Sean Chen and Cristina Perez Pilot phase: September 2013 First phase: 8 22 October 2013 Second phase: November 2013 April responses: 14 new standards 4 new profiles 13 new metadata tools 19 new use cases 18 updates See Perez (2013) for details bit. ly/ 1fToaqd

24 Platform migration Site setup Dec 2013 Mar 2014 by Sean Chen Content migration May Aug 2014 by Kate Anne Alderete and Sean Chen Delivery preparation Jan Feb 2015 by Dustin Allen, Alex Ball, Sean Chen and Adrian Ogletree Launch Mar 2015 at RDA Plenary 5 rd- alliance. github. io/ metadata- directory/

25 Data model Metadata standard Helper tool More specific profile Use case Subject Discipline

26 Metadata standard record Metadata RDA Metadata Directory Edit this page Getting Started View the standards View the extensions View the tools View the use cases Browse by subject areas Adding standards Adding extensions Adding tools Adding use cases linkedin facebook MIDAS-Heritage A British cultural heritage standard for recording information on buildings, archaeological sites, shipwrecks, parks and gardens, battlefields, areas of interest and artefacts. Sponsored by the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage, MIDAS Version 1.1 was released in October Summary Edit Standard Website Specification Related Vocabularies INSCRIPTION Subjects Arts and Humanities Social and Behavioral Sciences Disciplines Archaeology Architecture Building Conservation Heritage Studies Historical and Philosophical Studies History by Area Extensions Add CARARE metadata schema Edit An application profile of the MIDAS Heritage standard intended for delivering metadata to the CARARE service environment about an organisation s online collections, monument inventory database and digital objects. Page is generated from simple, easy to edit text file. Edit links give access to source. Add links for quickly adding profiles, tools or use cases.

27 Metadata standard record --- title: MIDAS-Heritage slug: midas-heritage description: <p>a British cultural heritage standard for recording information on buildings, archaeological... MIDAS Version 1.1 was released in October 2012.</p> website: subjects: - arts-and-humanities - social-and-behavioral-sciences disciplines: - history-area - heritage-studies - building-conservation - historical-and-philosophical-studies - architecture - archaeology specification_url: related_vocabularies: - name: INSCRIPTION url: Page is generated from simple, easy to edit text file. Edit links give access to source. Add links for quickly adding profiles, tools or use cases.

28 Browsing the Directory Indexes by subject for standards profiles tools use cases Discipline-specific lists of all four Index of disciplines by subject

29 Browsing the Directory Indexes by subject for standards profiles tools use cases Discipline-specific lists of all four Index of disciplines by subject

30 Browsing the Directory Indexes by subject for standards profiles tools use cases Discipline-specific lists of all four Index of disciplines by subject

31 Contributing

32 Usage GitHub DCC Website Jan 1 Dec 31, 2015 Total page views: events 14% resources/how-guides 9% 6% resources/metadata-standards 71% other

33 But we can do better than that

34 Use cases (1) Data providers and custodians would like to use the Directory to search or browse for metadata standards by what they describe physical artifacts, video, etc. to compare standards side-by-side, especially to identify commonalities between the standards of different communities. to obtain recommendations of standards to use based on criteria I provide. to look up the persistent ID (PID) for a standard, for robust linking. Librarians would like to use the Directory to inspect existing profiles of a standard as a first step to constructing their own.

35 Use cases (2) Journal editors would like to use the Directory to check the maturity and level of support of existing standards, so they know which to recommend to authors. Funders would like to use the Directory to find out of which standards they have funded the development, whether they are widely used, whether they have been kept up to date, and whether they might be merged into other standards. Tool developers would like to submit a whole or partial dataset and retrieve a list of metadata standards which could be used to document it. to generate a first attempt crosswalk between schemas automatically.

36 Use cases (3) Tool developers would like to submit a set of field names to the Directory and retrieve the metadata standard from which they originate. to request from the Directory a sample of metadata records adhering to a specific standard. to retrieve a list of appropriate metadata standards based on the partial content from a draft data management plan. to submit a PID for a metadata standard to the Directory and retrieve the specification for the standard. to submit a pair of PIDs for metadata standards to the Directory and retrieve a suggested migration pathway.

37 Can you think of any others?

38 From Directory to Catalog Can only hope to satisfy such use cases with more detail about each standard/profile information at the element level? specifications in native form? specifications in a normalized form? converters in a normalized form? data types for which the standard used? whether tied to a given format, whether RDF-friendly? with an API for automated access to the information with structured outputs so tools can act on the information Also need to make it even easier for people to contribute, directly or via tools.

39 Metadata Standards Catalog Working Group Recognized and endorsed on 18 January 2016 By 18 July 2016, collect and analyse use cases to produce requirements and technical specification for the Catalog By 18 January 2017, develop prototype Catalog and identify adopters By 18 July 2017, evaluate and validate Catalog; add mappings from selection of standards to functional packages ; refine user interface and API. Please join us! rd- alliance. org/ groups/ metadata- standards- catalog- working- group. html

40 Acknowledgements Fellow MSDWG co-chairs Jane Greenberg, MRC Keith Jeffery Rebecca Koskela, DataONE DCC Disciplinary Metadata Catalogue Liz Bedford, DCC Survey and GitHub work Sean Chen, MRC Cristina Perez, MRC Kate Anne Alderete, DataONE Adrian Ogletree, MRC Thank you to Working Group members who suggested directory entries, provided use cases, and helped to steer the work.

41 References (1) Ball, A. (2009), Scientific Data Application Profile Scoping Study Report, version 1.1, Scoping study (Bath, UK: UKOLN, University of Bath, 3 June), ball2009sda- v11. pdf. Ball, A. (2013), The DCC Disciplinary Metadata Catalogue, Paper presented at the CAMP-4-DATA Workshop, International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2013, Lisbon, Portugal, http: // dcevents. dublincore. org/ IntConf/ dc- 2013/ paper/ view/ 203. Perez, C. I. (2013), The RDA s Metadata Standards Directory: Information gathering, Unpublished master s paper (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).

42 References (2) Qin, J., Small, R., and D Ignazio, J. (2008), Metadata standards, Syracuse University, Science Data Literacy Project, Riley, J. and Becker, D. (2010), Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe, Indiana University Libraries, www. dlib. indiana. edu/ ~jenlrile/ metadatamap/. Tanenbaum, A. S. (1988), Computer Networks, (2nd edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall), ISBN: X. Tenopir, C. et al. (2011), Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions, PLoS ONE, 6/6: e21101, doi: / journal. pone

43 Metadata Standards Directory WORKING GROUP Thank you for your attention Alex Ball: Metadata Standards Directory Working Group: