dublin core lit review
DESCRIPTION
A literature review on Dublin CoreTRANSCRIPT
LIS 688METADATAKyle Butler
April 24, 2012
METADATA STANDARDS AND DUBLIN CORE
I: Introduction
The term “Metadata” is one that holds many different meanings.
Within the Library and Information Studies community, it has been
accepted for many years to mean data about other data. Metadata is needed
in order for individuals to describe and organize electronic and web
resources, so they could effectively retrieve them in the future. In order to
ward off potential issues with classifying and describing items, the
information community uses a series of accepted metadata standards.
The purpose of this paper is to conduct a literature review on works
that discuss metadata standards, with a particular focus on Dublin Core. In
the search to find scholarly articles on metadata standards and Dublin Core,
it seemed as though the literature could be divided into a pair of categories:
those which focus on the general aspects of metadata, and those that
provide more in-depth studies geared towards an audience with a greater
grasp of the subject at hand. A number of sources deliver a broad picture of
what standards actually are, define the various terms, and are suited for
people who are trying to gain a basic understanding of metadata.
II: Introducing Metadata Standards
1 | P a g e
According to authors Marcia Lei Zeng and Jian Qin, metadata
standards are named element sets and/or schemas that have been approved
by a national or international standard body, a community, or a professional
association. (Zeng, 2008) There are various types of metadata standards,
including: Data Structure Standards, Data Content Standards, Data Value
Standards, and Data Exchange Standards. Metadata standards were
devised as a means of fixing issues regarding resource description and
discovery problems. Essentially, they provide a way for people to organize
information and make it accessible. They also enable people to share
information with other users and electronic information repositories.
The creation of metadata standards remains a relatively recent
invention. There are several different types of metadata standards, all of
which have been developed in the past two decades. Dublin Core was the
first such standard developed in 1995, but many others followed, including
Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), Encoded Archival
Description (EAD) and Categories for the Description of Works of Art
(CDWA). Though each standard has its own unique set of characteristics,
they all function through a series of elements, which serve as a means of
describing the various properties of an object or resource.
III: Metadata Standards Sources
One of the better resources that presents an introduction to metadata
and its standards can be found in a booklet entitled “Understanding
2 | P a g e
Metadata” (National Information Standards Organization, 2004). A
revision of “Metadata Made Simpler: A Guide to Libraries”, this free guide
begins by defining what metadata actually is, its importance to cataloging,
and how it is structured. The guide proceeds to delve into descriptions of
the major metadata standards, including EAD, MODS, VRA, as well as
Dublin Core. The guide also contains a sample Dublin Core entry so that
readers can see firsthand examples of how one would fill the majority of
DC’s 15 element fields. Perhaps this resource’s greatest attribute, however,
is a list of related sources on metadata, ranging from General Sources to
Schemas to Crosswalks, along with a handy glossary of terms. The booklet
is published by NISO, which identifies, develops, and maintains technical
standards in a constantly changing digital market.
Another good, and slightly more recent source when it comes to
providing information about metadata standards in a general sense is
“Metadata Standards and Applications” (Hillmann, 2008). This report
published in Serials Librarian is interesting in that it divides metadata
standards into five distinct categories. First, there is Administrative
Metadata, focusing on who created the data, when it was created, and
whether or not a source has been recently updated and/or approved.
Descriptive Metadata centers on general information that traditional
catalogers understand, including Title, Author, Subject, Format, and
Relation. A third category, Access/Use Metadata is basically self-
explanatory, containing information about rights and management.
3 | P a g e
Preservation Metadata is designed to ensure access to information is
maintained over a lengthy period of time. Hillmann and her co-authors
argue that the digital world is dynamic and constantly changing, and that
preservation metadata must be able to handle these updates. Finally,
Structural Metadata relates files to each other. While this source does not
go into as much detail about the individual standards, choosing to focus on
Dublin Core and MODS, it does provide a great review of metadata as a
whole and argues that while some librarians may be resistant to changes,
change is already here, and accepting metadata standards is essential in
order to effectively organize information in the digital age.
“Metadata For Digital Collections: A How-To-Do-It Manual”
(Miller, 2011) is one of the few books I encountered, and is also one of the
most recent sources available that touches on metadata-related information.
Like the previous publications, Miller gives a general overview of what
metadata is and introduces readers to some of the metadata standards,
namely Dublin Core and MODS. However, unlike the other sources, this
book delves into the world of Visual Resources Association Core Categories.
Additionally, Miller discusses controlled vocabularies for improved resource
discovery, and, as the title would indicate, spends the most time on
metadata for digital collections.
While the aforementioned resources tend to deliver more general
accounts of the various standards and of metadata itself, there are also
4 | P a g e
several articles and publications that have a much narrower focus devoted
towards Metadata standards. One such source appeared in Library
Technology Reports, fittingly entitled “Metadata Standards.” Though the
work is somewhat dated, having been published in 2002, it nevertheless
serves as a unique source. While Hillman broke down metadata standards
into five different categories, this report goes a step further, subdividing the
standards into six areas. The first area consists of General Metadata
Standards, which are the most common and widely accepted standards to
date, and include Dublin Core, EAD, and MODS. The second area;
Transportation Models, assists in the interoperability, transfer, and
transport of information among standards, and include Resource
Description Framework (RDF) and Extensive Markup Language (XML).
Next are Educational Metadata Standards, which exist in order to teach
both professors and educators to utilize the electronic environment as a
learning tool. The fourth area features Media Specific standards, covering
the various types of media in electronic form, a list which includes music,
art, audio, and streaming video. Preservation Metadata Standards manage
and keep digital objects for generations to come, through standards such as
the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) and the Open
Archival Information System (OAIS). Last but not least, Rights Metadata
Standards deal with the issues of copyrighting digital items, and these work
in tandem with some of the other previously listed groups. This report
5 | P a g e
effectively breaks down each of the standards, expresses their benefits, as
well as dictating their potential for future projects.
Another of the journal articles encountered in researching literature
on metadata standards appeared in Library Technology Reports. (Eden,
2005). This report discusses the various standards with a major emphasis
on recent efforts by the Library of Congress to develop new metadata
standards as well as crosswalks. The article concluded in a report on the
stability and development of current standards that the “widespread use of
the MARC format for the exchange of bibliographic information and for
managing library operations will not change for the foreseeable future.”
However, many limitations of MARC, like lack of scalability to digital
materials are not listed in that report. In comparison to the other resources,
this report is far more technical but should be of benefit to metadata
professionals in the field.
One final source about metadata standards is Alexander’s article on
“Core Cataloging and Metadata Standards and Best Practices.”
(Alexander, 2008) She begins by identifying the different standards,
covering the likes of Dublin Core, XML, MODS, and EAD, and covers
examples of mixing schemas. The core standards are identified with an
emphasis on science and technology disciplines, but can still be useful for
librarians in all fields. The article is designed to “assist librarians who will
6 | P a g e
implement these practices or will advocate the needs of the library and
information science profession.”
IV: Introducing Dublin Core
There is no shortage of options when it comes to selecting a particular
metadata standard. From EAD to VRA to MODS to CDWA, lots of standards
have been created over the past two decades as means of describing,
sharing, and organizing resources. However, the first and arguably most
famous standard remains Dublin Core (DC). Created in 1995, the Dublin
Core is a metadata standard used to supplement existing methods for
searching and indexing web-based metadata, and can be utilized regardless
of whether a resource in question is an electronic document or a real
“tangible” object. Dublin Core originally consisted of a set of 13 descriptive
definitions, before being expanded to 15 elements. The Dublin Core
Metadata Element Set (DCMES) is a core set of elements shared across
disciplines or within an organization needing to organize and classify
information. These elements include Contributor, Coverage, Creator, Date,
Description, Format, Identifier, Language, Publisher, Relation, Rights,
Source, Subject, Title, and Type. Each element comes with a specific
definition so users are clear what sort of information fits within the element.
Nearly twenty years after its creation, Dublin Core remains an
enormously popular choice compared to other metadata standards. There
are numerous benefits to using the Dublin Core standard. A great deal of
7 | P a g e
Dublin Core’s popularity derives from the fact that it remains a relatively
simple metadata standard, and can easily be used by people who may not be
experts in the field of metadata. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
promotes this fact, pointing out that anyone can use the DC metadata to
describe the resources of an information system. Additionally, many digital
archives of physical objects have started to make use of Dublin Core over
the past several years. Also, Dublin Core Metadata is used by a variety of
groups; an impressive list that includes not only libraries, but educational
organizations, governmental institutions, businesses, corporations, and by
the scientific research sector.
V: Dublin Core Sources
As was the case with the works on metadata standards, the sources on
Dublin Core range from basic articles that deliver a general overview of the
DC standard to more complex articles better geared towards professionals
in the field. One of the best pieces of literature on Dublin Core that can be
utilized by just about anybody is “A Grammar of Dublin Core” (Baker,
2000). Though the source is slightly older than some of the others on the
topic, it still stands as one of the best introductory guides to Dublin Core for
individuals who are first learning about metadata standards. In this guide,
Baker points out that while some would describe Dublin Core as a type of
modern-day card catalog or exchange format, he argues that DC should
really be considered an actual language for making statements about
8 | P a g e
particular types of resources. He then delves into the subjects of elements,
qualifiers, and issues surrounding Dublin Core. Again, though the source is
slightly dated and the world of metadata standards has been altered
dramatically since its publication, this guide is still a great tool for
introducing the basics of Dublin Core and explaining its importance to
metadata and classification.
Twelve years after authoring a guide on the basics of Dublin Core,
Baker also authored another work on DC, entitled “Libraries, Languages
of Description, and Linked Data: A Dublin Core Perspective.” (Baker,
2012) This resource is considerably more technical than Baker’s previous
work. The article focuses on how the Dublin Core which was originally seen
as a simplified record format, came increasingly to be seen as an RDF
vocabulary for use in metadata based on a “statement” model, and how new
approaches to metadata evolved to bridge the gap between these models.
Baker also examines how Dublin Core issues also exemplify problems that
must be fixed in order to ensure that library data remains compatible with
other data sources, while still meeting quality and consistency standards.
Another solid source that takes a look at Dublin Core and application
profiles is an article published in Library Trends, “Describing Scholarly
Works with Dublin Core: A Functional Approach” (Allinson, 2008).
This article discusses how the Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP)
was developed. SWAP is a Dublin Core application profile for describing
9 | P a g e
scholarly texts. In this article, Allinson also talks about how the Dublin Core
Metadata Initiative’s “Singapore Framework” functions, by incorporating
the various elements of Application Profile building as defined by this
framework. It’s a source definitely geared towards people already well-
versed in the subjects of metadata and Dublin Core.
A final source is an analysis from Information Technology and
Libraries. “Dublin Core, DSpace, and a Brief Analysis of Three
University Repositories.” (Kurtz, 2010). Kurtz provides an overview of
Dublin Core, including an explanation of its foundation as well as the
elements before delving into DSpace. She writes that DSpace “simplifies the
metadata markup process by using terminology that is different from DC
standards”. However, while examining the institutional repositories of three
universities: University of Washington, New Mexico University, and Ohio
State University, he discovers that when DSpace is utilized there are
several consistency issues and some records are “abysmal”. She concludes
that librarian intervention during the record-creation process is an
improvement over self-archiving. This source isn’t terribly technical, but still
better suited for those with metadata expertise.
VI: Conclusion
10 | P a g e
It was clear at an early stage of the research process that I was
finding two types of literature on metadata standards and DC: general
sources for people new to the topic, and more specific sources for experts in
the field. I tried to ensure that both types of literature were well
represented in this review. The information community consists of people
who are well-versed in metadata, and those who may not be as familiar with
metadata and its characteristics. However, there is no question that
metadata standards are here to stay, and they will only be increasing in
importance as time passes. Many librarians and information specialists will
have to become at least somewhat familiar with how metadata operates.
Fortunately, there are many solid articles and reports out there that can
assist them in understanding a subject that plays a major role in how
information is organized and accessed.
WORKS CITED
11 | P a g e
Alexander, Mary S. (2008) “Core Cataloging and Metadata Standards
and Best Practices.” University of Alabama Libraries.
Allinson, June. (2008). “Describing Scholarly Works with Dublin
Core: A Functional Approach.” Library Trends, 57, (2): 221-243.
Baker, Thomas (2000). “A Grammar of Dublin Core” D-Lib Magazine,
6 (10). Available at
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html
Baker, Thomas. (2012). “Libraries, Languages of Description, and
Linked Data: A Dublin Core Perspective.” Library Hi-Tech, 30 (1)
116-133.
Eden, Brad. Library Technology Reports, (2005), 41 (6), 20-33.
Hillmann, D.I., Marker, R., & Brady, C. (May 2008). “Metadata
Standards and Applications.” Serials Librarian, 54 (1) 7-21.
Kurtz, Mary. (2010). “Dublin Core, DSpace, and a Brief Analysis of
Three University Repositories.” Information Technology and
Libraries, Chicago: Library and Information Technology Association,
29, (1): 40-46
Metadata Standards. (2002) Library Technology Reports 38 (5) 19-
60.
12 | P a g e
Miller, Steven J. (2011). “Metadata for Digital Collections: A How-
To-Do-It Manual.” New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
National Information Standards Organization (2004).
“Understanding Metadata.” Bethesda, Md: NISO Press.
Zeng, M.L. & Qin, J. (2008) “Metadata.” New York: Neal-Schuman
Publishers, p. 322.
13 | P a g e