Digital Libraries
Collaborative Electronic Reviews
Department of Library Science and Instructional Technology
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven CT

LSC 551-70
Fall 1999

Reviews by:
Karen Ball
Gayle Bogel
Lisa Brenner
Deborah Coretto
Sue Crego
Marilyn Geiger
Mark Gore
Dawn Higginson
Eric Jones
Dianne Lyons
Kathleen Marszycki
Robert Murphy
Kris Piecyk
Jodi Stacy
Amanda Timolat

Short Summary Paper and Threaded Discussion Question.

Reviewed by Gayle Bogel

In June 1999 the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Cataloging and Classification Section (an ALA organization) published a summary report on the work of the Task Force on Metadata.

The task force addressed four charges: 1) analyzing the resource description needs of libraries, 2) building a conceptual map of the resource description terrain/landscape and developing models for accessing/using metadata both inside and outside the library community, 3) devising a definition of metadata in investigating the interoperability of newly emerging metadata schemes with the cataloging rules and MARC format, 4) recommending ways in which libraries may best incorporate the use of metadata schemes into current library methods.

The problems and challenges of creating effective digital libraries are thoroughly analyzed, and links to examples of works in progress on metadata architecture are presented. I have listed a couple of highlights from each section.

1. Analyzing the resource description needs of libraries.

   With the advent of digital libraries and the accessibility of many formats of information, it is no longer possible to categorize a user, and then presume to know what information that user is likely to require. Metadata schemes need to take into account that users are "multiple, complex and protean" in their approach. Users can take on a multiplicity of roles during the resource discovery process.

   In a networked environment, isolated or local only catalogs contribute very little to "a coherent environment for users." A new breed of catalogs is necessary, and "the tool (catalog) isn¹t done working until has delivered the goods (information) or come as close as possible."

2. Building a conceptual map of the resource description terrain/landscape and developing models for accessing/using metadata both inside and outside the library community.

   There is a link to the conceptual map that has been developed:

   http://128.253.211.110/metamarda/ResourceMap.html

3. Devising a definition of metadata and investigating the interoperability of newly emerging metadata schemes with the cataloging rules and MARC format.

   The task force gathered current definitions of "metadata", "interoperability" and "metadata schemes", posted them on the committee¹s email system for open discussion. They discovered that the terms were not as clear as they might seem to be, and the discussion and revisions resulted in 27 potential definitions for "metadata", 9 for "interoperability", and 10 for "metadata scheme".

   For the purposes of the summary, they arrived at three working definitions, but included all of the potentials in an appendix.

   The working definitions:

   Metadata are structured, encoded data that describe characteristics of information-bearing entities to aid in the identification, discovery, assessment, and management of the described entities.

   Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and use the exchanged information without special effort on either system.

   A Metadata Scheme provides a formal structure designed to identify the knowledge structure of a given discipline and to link that structure to the information of the discipline through the creation of an information system that will assist the identification, discovery and use of information within that discipline.

   Recommending ways in which libraries may best incorporate the use of metadata schemes into current library methods.

   The task force reviewed some earlier work that had been done on the idea of the "prototype" catalog of the future. The prototype would include a search interface that can access all information available in any standard, format, location, or subject. The task force then gave their own definition as: "a virtually seamless access to information and relevant retrieval of information from the user¹s point of view."

   Links to catalogs that may have some of the characteristics of the prototype definition are listed, for use in further study.

REFERENCE: Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS). Task Force on Metadata. Summary Report, June 1999.
URL: http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/tf-meta3.html

Threaded Discussion Question:

What are the ramifications of the American Library Association being involved in providing the framework for developing metadata resources? To paraphrase Martha Stewart, is this a "good thing?"

Outsourcing Digitization

Reviewed by Gayle Bogel

Roy Tennant is a Project Manager with the Digital Library Research and Development Department at UC Berkeley. He presents three reasons to outsource:

• Expense. Unless a digitization infrastructure is already established, significant investments in both technical capability and staff expertise must be made to digitize in-house.
• Expertise. Unless a regular schedule of digitization is anticipated, or if only certain unique projects are scheduled, it may not make sense to invest in staff expertise .
• Time: It¹s time consuming to train in-house staff or to hire new ones.

He goes on to list a number of resources that further discuss the subject. Some are technical in nature, like the ins and outs of the Kodak PhotoCD process, and some address the process of outsourcing, such as choosing a digitization vendor, and anticipating the cost of various levels of metadata needs.

He recommends the site "Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives" http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/dila.htm as "the best overall resource for learning about outsourcing a digitization project".

He also recommends a recent library school project "Outsourcing Digitization" http://leep.lis.uiuc.edu/seworkspace/malenfan/437/ as a resource for more information. (A site well worth looking at as an example of a terrific student project.)

REFERENCE

Tennant, Roy. "Outsourcing Digitization". Library Journal Digital 15 September 1999 http://www.ljdigital.com/articles/infotech/digitallibrariesindes.asp.

Threaded Discussion Question:

Outsourcing of other library processes such as cataloguing and acquisitions is an accepted process, but has met with a number of difficulties as non-library technicians are used by vendors to accomplish the tasks. What challenges do you see as a librarian in hiring others to perform the digitization process? Do you agree that outsourcing is the answer for most digitization projects?