running head: metadata recordsnaomimellendorf.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/9/5/25950594/n_3...cataloging...

Running HEAD: METADATA RECORDS

Artifact 3: Evaluating Metadata

Naomi Mellendorf

Assignment 3: Metadata Records Project

LIBR 281-10: Metadata

School of Library and Information Science

San Jose State University

December 9, 2013

METADATA RECORDS LIBR 281-10 Assignment 3

Mellendorf 2

Introduction

Cataloging three-dimensional objects and their digital image surrogates has

always been problematic for libraries whose primary holdings constitute books and

serials. It is a rare library, however, that does not find within its collections, objects of

public and scholarly interest—paintings, sculptures, quilts and textiles, and other cultural

artifacts. It behooves libraries to record descriptive details such as access, holdings,

provenance and rights information regarding such objects, not only for security and

inventory purposes, but also for the library’s interested constituents. Beyond a mere

inventory, creating rich and descriptive metadata could enhance discovery, access,

appreciation, and enjoyment of cultural objects. However, most libraries manage and

describe their bibliographic holdings using the Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC)

data format and the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) in an

integrated library system. These tools do not assist metadata specialists in the creation of

rich description for three-dimensional objects or their digital surrogates very well.

Though the intention of the second edition of AACR was to provide a template for

describing any item a library might have, three-dimensional objects and digital images

have remained problematic (Bierbaum, 1985; Bierbaum, 1990; Mitchell, 2013). As newer

standards and greater interoperability have emerged, the potential to create rich metadata

for three-dimensional objects in more traditional settings has become feasible. This

feasibility leads to the following questions for consideration:

1) Is the MARC format still viable as a data structure and if so, will the

succession of Resource Description and Access (RDA) to AACR2 increase MARC’s

viability or work best in conjunction with a successor to MARC?


Mellendorf 3

2) Does RDA’s foundational connections to the conceptual model Functional

Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) create new potential for metadata

creation across physical boundaries?

3) Is the ubiquitous Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) a potential

candidate to improve metadata for three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates?

4) Should libraries look outside their communities to museums and visual

resource collections to schemes such as Categories for the Description of Works of Art

(CDWA) and Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO)?

5) Ultimately, which metadata scheme would work best for the creation of rich

metadata for the description of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates?

The purpose of this metadata project is three-fold: 1) to examine several metadata

schemes including MARC (in conjunction with RDA), DCMES, and CDWA/COO for

the purpose of identifying viable candidates for the description of three-dimensional,

cultural artifacts and their digital surrogates; 2) to create descriptive records of three-

dimensional cultural objects in the aforementioned schemas; and 3) to analyze and

evaluate the records for the quality of their metadata.

The MARC Format and RDA

The MARC format is a carrier standard developed in the 1960s that has been

widely adopted and used in library communities for cataloging traditional materials

(Lopatin, 2010). Additional revisions in the MARC format and the general material

designations (GMD) in AACR2 to more fully accommodate visual and three-dimensional

objects, however, have been met with limited success and adoption outside of libraries

(Bierbaum, 1990; Mitchell, 2013; Olson, 2000). While MARC and AACR2 have served


Mellendorf 4

the library community well in managing traditional formats, their time for revision may

be past. Revolution, not revision, may indeed be best in order to manage digital resources,

linked data, and cultural heritage communities beyond libraries who find MARC and

AACR2 inadequate for description of works of art, architecture, cultural objects and

images (Whiteside, 2005).

In 2003, Tillett described the activities of the Study Group of the International

Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) who issued a report that

presented a conceptual model titled Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

(FRBR). Though AACR2 claimed to accommodate all types of materials, formats, and

forms, the FRBR conceptual model attempts also to describe the relationships among the

materials, those responsible for that content and their collective subjects. Tillett indicated

that the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual model could have a profound

influence upon the description of resources as currently practiced in AACR2 and its

structural format and companion, MARC. Indeed, in the decade since, FRBR has become

the conceptual model for AACR2’s successor, Resource Description and Access (RDA)

when it was officially released in June 2010 (El-Sherbini and Curran, 2011; Kincy and

Wood, 2012; Mitchell, 2013; Picco and Ortiz Repiso, 2012).

El-Sherbini and Curran (2011) indicated in a pre-release conference presentation

that RDA’s use of FRBR for its conceptual framework, expansion in MARC fields to

accompany RDA’s changes, and the role of relationships in RDA will create a more

robust cataloging standard suitable for digital materials and cultural heritage communities

beyond libraries. Implying that RDA will enhance cataloging outside of libraries directly

ties the usefulness of RDA to communities that manage three-dimensional objects.


Mellendorf 5

Indeed, they point out “Unlike AACR2, RDA does not have different rules to cater to

different formats” (2011). In emphasizing the role of relationships in RDA, a metadata

scheme modeled on FRBR principles can generate bibliographic records that transcend

flat MARC records and provide users with linked and related resources (Picco and Ortiz

Repiso, 2012). In addition, RDA is an international initiative with a priority goal in

increasing access to and interoperability with international and non-library based

resources. This priority is further evidence that RDA in conjunction with MARC or RDA

in conjunction with Dublin Core (DC) or a new structural format is well suited to the

creation of rich metadata for three-dimensional objects and the digital representation of

those objects (Cassidy, 2011).

The Dublin Core Element Set

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) began as a series of informal

conversations at the 2nd Annual World Wide Web conference in Chicago, 1994.

Concerned professionals discussed the already apparent need to enable discovery of web

resources on a then young and emerging Web. Just a few months later, workshops began

to discuss a basic metadata format that could address the description of resources found

on the Web (Harper, 2010). Over the course of the late 1990s and early 2000s, a set of 15

metadata elements were finalized, published, and standardized by national and

international standards’ agencies (DCMI, 2013). The set of elements became known as

the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) and is often referred to simply as

Dublin Core (DC). The DCMES received especially heavy criticism from the library

community for its simplistic structure and format, often in comparison to the MARC

format and other library standards (Harper, 2010). Outside of the library community,


Mellendorf 6

however, DCMES has been widely used particularly as a basis of more specialized

metadata element standards. Used in conjunction with properties and vocabularies

defined elsewhere, Dublin Core application profiles became the extensible and

interoperable metadata format capable of managing data at a high degree of granularity

and specificity that those in the library community had once said made DCES a poor

format (Harper, 2011). Furthermore, El-Sherbini and Curran (2011) posited that the

“Dublin Core encoding standard [is] more in line with the aims and approach of RDA

than MARC 21 and…Dublin Core will eventually usurp MARC as the dominant

encoding standard.” While it does not appear that the Bibliographic Framework Initiative,

the consortium of international bibliographic agencies charged with the task to transition

and replace MARC21, will utilize DCES as El-Sherbini and Curran suggest, DC’s

connection to the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and compatibility with linked

data initiatives is significant (Baker, 2012; Network Development and Standards Office,

2013A; Szeto, 2013). Indeed, LAM communities have embraced DCES and the

connected application profiles to describe digital resources—including those digital

resources that serve as surrogates to three-dimensional cultural artifacts—for the primary

reason that related initiatives such as linked data, FRBR, RDA, RDF and CCO have

converged and aligned more closely than ever before (Szeto, 2013). LAM communities

and the rich heritage of descriptive metadata these communities have created for

discovery and access may not be fully realized with the DCES, but the DCMI has moved

us all closer to a world with unbounded interconnectivity.


Mellendorf 7

Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) with CDWA

Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) is a data content standard developed by the

Visual Resources Association to facilitate the creation of rich, consistent, metadata for

the description of works of art and cultural objects (Lanzi, 2004; Visual Resources

Association, 2006). CCO does not address technical or administrative metadata for

artistic works and their surrogate images but focuses solely on descriptive content (Lanzi

and McRae, 2007). Used in conjunction with data element sets such as Dublin Core or

Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) and vocabulary standards such

as Getty’s Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) or the Library of Congress Subject

Headings (LCSH), CCO provides to the art and cultural heritage communities what

AACR2 and now RDA have provided to library cataloging communities for many years

(Coburn, 2007; Whiteside, 2005).

At the outset of the cataloging process, CCO makes a clear distinction between

the work or artifact and its surrogate image. Many elements may be used to describe and

document a work and its image and if distinctions are not made clear, retrieval or access

information may be confusing. Thus, CCO carefully defines the constitution and

substance of a work, built works, visual arts, cultural artifacts, and notably—image.

While a work in CCO is a creative product (and not analogous to a FRBR work), an

image is a visual representation of a work (Harpring, 2007). CCO allows the cataloger to

easily accommodate these distinctions and establish relationships between a work and its

image surrogate or relationships to other components of a larger work. This

accommodation sets CCO apart from the guidelines of AACR2 but relates it to RDA in

certain aspects. Furthermore, the ongoing development and adoption of RDA in library


Mellendorf 8

communities in conjunction with the implementation of CCO in arts and visual resources

communities provides a great foundation for library communities to adapt CCO for object

cataloging in their special collections (Coburn, Lanzi, O'Keefe, et. al, 2010; O’Keefe,

2007).

Project Description

With the aforementioned background on MARCXML (with AACR2 and RDA),

DC, and CDWA/CCO in mind, I created 16 records in each schema: 6 records of

scrapbooks, 4 records of crocheted baby afghans, and 6 records of quilts. Each of these

16 cultural objects are unique, hand-created items, unpublished and without formal

description in a LAM setting. The MARC record creator available online from the

Commonwealth Braille and Talking Book Cooperative (http://www.cbtbc.org/marc/) was

used to generate MARCXML code. Records were further enhanced manually with the

XML editing software Oxygen for coverage, completeness, and alignment with AACR2

and RDA standards. The Advanced Generator available online at the Dublin Core

Generator (http://www.dublincoregenerator.com/generator.html) was used to generate

XML code recognizing the Dublin Core namespace. Again, the XML editor Oxygen was

used to enhance records manually for coverage, completeness and alignment with

standards such as Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Getty Art and

Architecture Thesaurus (AAT). Finally, the CDWA/CCO records were created manually

in Oxygen with the CDWALite schema declaration and the CDWALite namespace

declaration in place. Since such declarations were in place, the manual creation of valid,

well-formed, schema-compliant records, though a more lengthy a process than the auto-

generated MARC and DC records, was a reasonable and feasible process.


Mellendorf 9

Discussion and Analysis

Though five questions were posed at the outset of this investigation as

well as three purposes for this project, it is the fifth question and third purpose that forms

the focus of analysis for the 48 records created. It is important to reiterate both points

here: which metadata scheme would work best for the creation of rich metadata for the

description of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates; and, the purpose of

this metadata project is to analyze and evaluate the records for the quality of their

metadata. Let’s proceed to answer that question as an analysis and evaluation of metadata

quality unfolds.

Metadata Quality

Metadata quality is an elusive concept without an extensive history of established

conceptual and operational definitions (Park, 2010). However, researchers in metadata

creation and application have attempted to define its nature, study its effects, and make

recommendations for improvement and further study (Hillman, 2008; Kurtz, 2010; Park,

2009; Park & Tosaka, 2010A; Park & Tosaka, 2010B; Tani, Candela & Castelli, 2013).

For the purpose at hand—examining three metadata schemes to determine which one is

best suited for the creation of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates—it

would be best to use three criteria that are rapidly becoming the most accepted criteria for

metadata quality: completeness, accuracy, and consistency (Kurtz, 2010; Park, 2009;

Park & Tosaka, 2010A; Park & Tosaka, 2010B).

Park and Tosaka (2010B) defined completeness in metadata as that occasion

when “individual objects are described using all metadata elements that are relevant to

their full access capacity in digital repositories.” That is to say, metadata completeness


Mellendorf 10

quality is high when there is enough metadata to assist in the functional purposes of

resource discovery and use. Metadata completeness quality is low when there is simply

not enough metadata to assist a user in discovering and using a resource. How much

metadata is needed to tip the balance from low quality completeness to high quality

completeness is beyond the scope of the present study, but suffice it to say that more

metadata is probably better than less. Considering that rich description is the goal in the

present study, a low completeness rate would not enhance the quality of rich description.

While independent evaluation of user resource discovery and use of this study’s records

is not feasible, completeness will be considered as the primary criteria for evaluating each

schema’s ability to provide rich description for three-dimensional objects.

In Park’s 2009 study of metadata quality in digital repositories, he defined

accuracy in metadata as “the accurate description and representation of data and

resources content.” Errors can include inaccurate data entry such as capitalization,

punctuation, spelling and typographical errors. Inaccurate data values can also result from

misapplication of metadata elements, e.g.: misunderstanding differences in creator,

contributor, and publisher (Park & Tosaka, 2010B). Since the present set of the author

created records under examination, accuracy will not be the primary focus of metadata

quality in this paper. Data entry errors have been reviewed and regulated. An

independent analysis of the records’ accuracy in metadata element application would be

necessary for an appropriate and unbiased review and is beyond the scope of this study.

Consistency is defined at conceptual and structural levels (Park & Tosaka,

2010B). At the conceptual level, consistency refers to the application of the same data

elements or values to similar concepts in resource description. The degree to which this


Mellendorf 11

application occurs is its level of consistency. This type of consistency is related to the

type of accuracy errors in which metadata elements are applied incorrectly, i.e. attribute a

data value as a creator when it should be the publisher. A high quality of consistency at

the conceptual level means that across many records, data elements or values have been

applied and defined in a highly similar fashion. Consistency at the structural level

“concerns the extent to which the same structure of format is used for presenting similar

data attributes and elements of a resource” (Park & Tosaka, 2010B). For example,

encoding date elements in differing formats (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY) could

yield data consistency problems at the structural level. Again, since the present set of the

author created records under examination, consistency will not be the primary focus of

metadata quality in this study. Data values and data formats have been reviewed and

regulated. An independent analysis of the records’ consistency would be necessary for an

appropriate and unbiased review and is beyond the scope of this study.

Metadata Quality as “Completeness” in MARXML/AACR2 w/RDA Records

Completeness as a measure of metadata quality in MARCXML formatted records

describing three-dimensional objects such as scrapbooks, crocheted blankets, and quilts

provides details such as title, author, physical description (i.e.: dimensions), subject

headings and a general summary. It is unlikely however, that users seeking such objects

will know exact titles and may not know given authors (i.e., creators). Additionally, the

physical description is greatly lacking detail, as MARCXML and AACR2/RDA do not

assist much in describing such objects beyond their dimensions. As a result, the summary

field (i.e., 520) is likely to hold an extensive amount of descriptive data – data likely to be

found only through keyword searching and thus, probably not found at all. The


Mellendorf 12

MARCXML format is an adequate format for describing three-dimensional objects, but it

doesn’t allow for much granularity in the objects’ details. Established data value

standards such as Library of Congress Subject Headings work well with the MARC

format, but again, fall short in providing the better headings that the Art and Architecture

Thesaurus would provide. If a library setting has few objects for description, the MARC

format and accompanying standards would provide adequate thought not rich description.

Metadata Quality as “Completeness” in DC with LCSH and AAT Records

Completeness as a measure of metadata quality in Dublin Core formatted records

describing three-dimensional objects such as scrapbooks, crocheted blankets, and quilts

provides details such as title, creator, description (summary), subject headings, format

(physical description such as size), provenance and rights holder. Additional data values

such as URIs have a central place in the Dublin Core format and certainly enhance the

description of the digital surrogates of three-dimensional objects. Once again, however,

the data elements that provide for physical description are lacking the detail and

granularity likely to be most helpful to researchers seeking such objects. The ability to

readily use the AAT in addition to LCSH in providing subject headings is useful. Again,

the description data element is likely to become a “catchall” bucket of data describing the

object when finer data elements could describe object details in a more granular fashion.

Though the three-dimensional objects described in this study’s records were for the

objects themselves and not their digital surrogates, the questions posed at the outset of

this study did wish to consider how best to describe an object’s digital surrogate. Perhaps

left to another study, it is likely that Dublin Core formatted records would provide


Mellendorf 13

adequate description for the digital surrogates of three-dimensional objects, but this

format is not suitable for the rich description of the original objects themselves.

Metadata Quality as “Completeness” in CDWALite and CCO Records

Completeness as a measure of metadata quality in CDWALite and CCO

formatted records describing three-dimensional objects such as scrapbooks, crocheted

blankets, and quilts provides details such as type of work, title, creator, creator

information (i.e., nationality, birth/death dates), style, creation dates, and much more.

Physical description details include dimensions, materials, free-text summaries, and

inscriptions. The use of the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus is evident throughout

in establishing vocabularies for description of the object and truly enhance the level of

detail in the description. CDWALite with CCO was created to describe the objects found

in galleries, museums, and cultural heritage institutions. Their creators knew that

researchers do want to know if an object is made of acrylic yarn or processed by clay

ovens. The CDWALite with CCO format and content standard is well suited to describe

three-dimensional objects in a variety of information organizations and cultural heritage

institutions. Interoperability and extensibility between such formats and standards and

those more commonly used in libraries (i.e., MARC/AACR2) make it feasible and

possible to integrate the rich description of CDWALite/CCO for three-dimensional

objects into existing collections.

Conclusion

How does a library provide rich descriptive metadata for three-dimensional

objects and their digital image surrogates? Which metadata schema would work best for

the creation of rich metadata for the description of three-dimensional objects and their


Mellendorf 14

digital surrogates? How does the analysis and evaluation of a set of records explore the

notion of metadata quality? A review of the questions posed at the outset and a brief

summary conclusion and implications for further research is provided here.

1) Is the MARC format still viable and if so, will the succession of Resource

Description and Access (RDA) to AACR2 increase MARC’s viability or work best in

conjunction to a successor to MARC? As things stand now, MARC will remain viable for

some time until the bibliographic communities make clear transitions via the BibFrame

Initiative. However, AACR2 in conjunction with MARC does not enhance the

description of three-dimensional artifacts sufficiently while the adoption of RDA does

hold some promise for rich description without physical boundaries.

2) Does RDA’s foundational connections to the conceptual model Functional

Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) create new potential for metadata

creation across physical boundaries? Yes, the FRBR model’s distinctions of work,

expression, manifestation, and item and it’s emphasis upon relationships and expression

in the Resource Description Framework holds great potential for rich description across

all materials.

3) Is the ubiquitous Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) a potential

candidate to improve metadata for three-dimensional objects and their digital

surrogates? It would certainly seem that DCMES could provide a great framework for

the digital image representations of three-dimensional objects especially if DCMES is

used in conjunction with a data content standard such as CCO and the appropriate

vocabulary standards. For the original three-dimensional objects, however, DCMES is

unlikely to offer great depth to their discovery and use.


Mellendorf 15

4) Should libraries look outside their communities to museums and visual

resource collections to schemes such as Categories for the Description of Works of Art

(CDWA) and Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO)? Yes, they certainly should do so.

There is much to be gained from adopting and adapting the metadata standards developed

with great expertise by their respective communities but shared across all LAM

communities. As we move toward a greater connectivity and interconnectivity than we

have ever seen via a truly linked web, we should prepare for such fluid connections now.

5) Ultimately, which metadata scheme would work best for the creation of rich

metadata for the description of three-dimensional objects and their digital surrogates?

and how does the record analysis and evaluation influence this choice? All of the

structural and content standards examined hold great potential for the description of

three-dimensional cultural heritage objects and their digital representations. Some

standards offer greater promise and flexibility while others hold a simpler, but less

satisfying solution. The CDWA and CCO schemas, exclusively or used in conjunction

with more established schemas such as MARC, offer the best options for rich, descriptive

metadata of cultural artifacts in any setting—library, archive or museum.


Mellendorf 16

References

Baker, T. (2012). Libraries, languages of description, and linked data: A Dublin core

perspective. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 116-133. doi:10.1108/07378831211213256

Bierbaum, E. G. (1985). The third dimension: Dealing with objects in public library

collections. Public Library Quarterly, 6, 33-49. doi:10.1300/J118v06n03_05

Bierbaum, E. G. (1990). MARC in museums: Applicability of the revised visual materials

format. Information Technology & Libraries, 9, 291-299.

Cassidy, J. L., & Milhorat, J. Y. (2011). RDA: What does it have to do with me? AALL

Spectrum, 16(2), 24-27.

Coburn, E. (2007). Beyond registration: Understanding what cataloging means to the

museum community. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 34(1), 76-80.

Coburn, E., Lanzi, E., O'Keefe, E., Stein, R., & Whiteside, A. (2010). The cataloging

cultural objects experience: Codifying practice for the cultural heritage

community. IFLA Journal, 36(1), 16-29. doi:10.1177/0340035209359561

DCMI home: Dublin core metadata initiative. (2013). Retrieved September 29, 2013,

from http://dublincore.org/index.shtml.rdf

El-Sherbini, M., & Curran, M. (2011). Resource description and access “RDA”: New

code for cataloging. Serials Librarian, 60(1-4), 7-15.

doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.55642

Harper, C. A. (2010). Dublin core metadata initiative: Beyond the element set.

Information Standards Quarterly, 22(1), 20-28.

Harpring, P. (2007). CCO overview and description. Visual Resources Association

Bulletin, 34(1), 34-44.


Mellendorf 17

Hillmann, D. I. (2008). Metadata quality: From evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging

& Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.

Kincy, C. P., & Wood, M. A. (2012). Rethinking access with RDA (resource description

and access). Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 9(1), 13-34.

doi:10.1080/15424065.2012.651573

Kurtz, M. (2010). Dublin core, DSpace, and a brief analysis of three university

repositories. Information Technology and Libraries, 29(1), 40-46.

Lanzi, E. (2004). Cataloguing cultural objects: New guidelines for descriptive cataloging.

Art Libraries Journal, 29(4), 26-32.

Lanzi, E., & McRae, L. (2007). Cataloging cultural objects: Community building through

standards. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 34(1), 15-19.

Lopatin, L. (2010). Metadata practices in academic and non-academic libraries for digital

projects: A survey. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(8), 716-742.

doi:10.1080/01639374.2010.509029

Mitchell, E. T. (2013). Metadata developments in libraries and other cultural heritage

institutions. Library Technology Reports, 49(5), 5-10.

Network Development and MARC Standards Office. (2013A). Bibliographic framework

initiative. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/

O'Keefe, E. (2007). The best of both worlds: Using CCO for object cataloging in libraries

and special collections. Visual Resources Association Bulletin, 34(1), 86-96.

Olson, N. B. (2000). Cataloging three-dimensional artifacts and realia. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 31(3), 139-150.


Mellendorf 18

Park, J. (2009). Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of

the art. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(3), 213-228.

Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010A). Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and

collections: Schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. Information

Technology and Libraries, 29(3), 104-116.

Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010B). Metadata quality control in digital repositories and

collections: Criteria, semantics, and mechanisms. Cataloging & Classification

Quarterly, 48(8), 696-715.

Picco, P. & Ortiz Repiso, V. (2012). The contribution of FRBR to the identification of

bibliographic relationships: The new RDA-based ways of representing

relationships in catalogs. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 622-

640. doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.680847

Tani, A., Candela, L., & Castelli, D. (2013). Dealing with metadata quality: The legacy

of digital library efforts. Information Processing & Management, 49(6), 1194.

Tillett, B. B. (2003). AACR2 and metadata: Library opportunities in the global semantic

web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 36(3-4), 101-119.

doi:10.1300/J104v36n03_09

Visual Resources Association. (2006). CCO Commons: Cataloging cultural objects.

Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://cco.vrafoundation.org/

Whiteside, A. B. (2005). Cataloguing cultural objects: New descriptive cataloguing

guidelines for the cultural heritage community. Art Documentation: Bulletin of

the Art Libraries Society of North America, 24(2), 16-18.


Mellendorf 19

For Appendices A, B, and C: Complete Records: See the separate file named

mellendorf_assign3_appendices.pdf or mellendorf_assign3_appendices.doc

Appendix D: Additional Works Consulted

Alemu, G., Stevens, B., Ross, P., & Chandler, J. (2012). Linked data for libraries:

Benefits of a conceptual shift from library-specific record structures to RDF-

based data models. New Library World, 113(11), 549-570.

doi:10.1108/03074801211282920

American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and Chartered Institute of

Library and Information Professionals. (2010). RDA Toolkit. Retrieved October

15, 2013, from http://access.rdatoolkit.org/

Babinec, M. S., & Mercer, H. (2009). Introduction: Metadata and open access

repositories. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(3-4), 209-212.

doi:10.1080/01639370902740301

Beacom, Matthew. (2007). Cataloging cultural objects (CCO), Resource description and

access (RDA), and the future of metadata content. Visual Resources Association

Bulletin, 34(1), 81-85.

Bierbaum, E. G. (1988). Teaching the cataloging of three-dimensional objects. Journal of

Education for Library & Information Science, 29, 3-14. doi:10.2307/40323580

Bierbaum, E. G. (1989). Beyond print: Object collections in academic libraries.

Collection Building, 10(1-2), 7-11.

Cole, T. W., Han, M., Weathers, W. F., & Joyner, E. (2013). Library marc records into

linked open data: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Library Metadata,

13(2-3), 163-196. doi:10.1080/19386389.2013.826074


Mellendorf 20

Coleman, A. S. (2005). From cataloging to metadata: Dublin core records for the library

catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3-4), 153-181.

doi:10.1300/J104v40n03_08

Dunsire, G., Hillmann, D., & Phipps, J. (2012). Reconsidering universal bibliographic

control in light of the semantic web. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2), 164-176.

doi:10.1080/19386389.2012.699831

Greenberg, J. (2005). Understanding metadata and metadata schemes. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 40(3-4), 17-36. doi:10.1300/J104v40n03_02

Greenberg, J. (2007). Advancing the semantic web via library functions. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 43(3-4), 203-225. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_11

Greenberg, J., & Méndez, E. (2007). Introduction: Toward a more library-like web via

semantic knitting. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(3-4), 1-8.

doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_a

Guns, R. (2013). Tracing the origins of the semantic web. Journal of the American

Society for Information Science & Technology, 64(10), 2173-2181.

doi:10.1002/asi.22907

Harper, C. A., & Tillett, B. B. (2007). Library of congress controlled vocabularies and

their application to the semantic web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,

43(3-4), 47-68. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_03

Miller, E. (1998). An introduction to the resource description framework. American

Society for Information Science. Bulletin of the American Society for Information

Science, 25(1), 15-19.


Mellendorf 21

Moore, M. (2012). The semantic web: An introduction for information professionals.

Indexer, 30(1), 38-43.

Myntti, J., & Cothran, N. (2013). Authority control in a digital repository: Preparing for

linked data. Journal of Library Metadata, 13(2-3), 95-113.

doi:10.1080/19386389.2013.826061

Network Development and MARC Standards Office. (2013B). MARC standards.

Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/marc/

RDA and the semantic web. (2008). Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 45(4), 108-

109.

RDA in RDF. (2010). Library Technology Reports, 46(2), 26-36.

Seadle, M. (2013). Archiving in the networked world: Resource description framework.

Library Hi Tech, 31(1), 182-188. doi:10.1108/07378831311304010

Taniguchi, S. (2013). Understanding RDA as a DC application profile. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 51(6), 601-623.

Wacker, M., Han, M., & Dartt, J. (2011). Testing resource description and access (RDA)

with non-MARC metadata standards. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,

49(7-8), 655-675. doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.616451

Yee, M. M. (2009). Can bibliographic data be put directly onto the semantic web?

Information Technology and Libraries, 28(2), 55-80.

running head: metadata recordsnaomimellendorf.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/9/5/25950594/n_3...cataloging...

Documents