Page 166 - Building Digital Libraries

Metadata Formats

widely used on today’s digital repository platforms, but many more exist.
Frameworks targeting geographic content (FGDC), images (VRA), 23
22
textual documents (TEI), and archival finding aids (EAD) all provide
25
24
metadata frameworks for the rich description of specific material types.
When choosing a digital repository, implementers should take stock of the
types of materials that will likely be stored within the resource and ask some
of the following questions:

• Who will be creating metadata within my digital
repository?
• What level of granularity will I require?
• Should my system support the batch importing and export-
ing of its digital objects?
• What role will legacy metadata play in my digital library
programs?
• Will my organization use a single monolithic system or will
my digital repository system be made up of many heteroge-
neous components?

Obviously, how one answers these questions will impact what metadata
framework would likely be best suited for one’s digital library system.
For example, will materials be entered by technical services staff, or will
metadata be submitted by faculty and students? If it’s the latter, utilizing a
metadata framework like Dublin Core, which provides a set of generally
understandable elements, would likely reduce the chances of metadata
creation becoming a barrier for submission. However, each of these choices
must be weighed by the individual institution—factoring in current work-
flows, expertise, and system infrastructure.

Notes

1. Bruce Johnson, “XML and MARC: Which Is ‘Right?’” Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly 32, no. 1 (2001): 81–90.
2. Ibid., 86.
3. Roy Tennant, “MARC Must Die,” Library Journal 127, no. 17 (2002): 26–28.
4. Roy Tennant, “Building a New Bibliographic Infrastructure,” Library Journal 129,
no. 1 (2004): 38.
5. Karen Calhoun, “The Changing Nature of the Catalog and Its Integration with Other
Discovery Tools,” Library of Congress, March 2006, www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun
-report-final.pdf.
6. Deanna B. Marcum, “Future of Cataloging,” address to the EBSCO leadership semi-
nar, Library of Congress, January 16, 2004, www.loc.gov/library/reports/Catalog
ingSpeech.pdf.
7. Library of Congress, “MARC Code List: Part V: Format Sources,” www.loc.gov/marc/
relators/relaform.html.
8. Terry Reese, “MarcEdit,” Oregon State University, http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset/
marcedit/.
151