drexel universitysgp33/eport/documents/dublinfinal.pdf · drexel university dublin core ... records...

DREXEL UNIVERSITY

Dublin Core

An Annotated Bibliography

Sarah Parnell Info 522: Information Access and Resources

Professor Missy Harvey

March 10, 2011

Parnell 2

Dublin Core: A history and its controversies a brief overview

Introduction and scope

The following bibliography consists of 18 scholarly peer-reviewed articles that

cover Dublin Core metadata, an article from the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, an

article from the National Information Standards Organization, and a chapter from

Priscilla Caplan’s book, Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians. The articles from

1995 to 2010 discuss the beginnings of the Dublin core initiative, the benefits of Dublin

Core, and the controversies surrounding it. All of the articles are from scholarly library

science journals and publications. Presented as a whole, these articles offer a thorough

look at the history, benefits and drawbacks of Dublin Core. Several articles discuss the

benefits of Dublin Core and its initial structure. Many of the other articles discuss the

disadvantages of Dublin Core, including the quality of the Dublin Core elements, and its

interoperability capabilities. This annotated bibliography is intended for students and

professionals interested in learning about metadata and particularly the history,

concepts, and controversies of Dublin Core.

Description

The term metadata is generally defined as ―data about data‖. According to the

National Information Standards Organization (NISO 2004), metadata describes,

explains, locates, and makes information easier to retrieve or manage (Adamich, 2007,

p. 66). Metadata is machine readable structured data used to organize electronic data.

Magda El-Sherbini and George Klin in their article titled Metadata and Cataloging

Practices (2004) say, "The term (metadata) came into being with the appearance of

electronic resources and it initially referred to standards that assisted in identifying,

describing and locating electronic resources" (p. 238). In other words, metadata

describes resources that are generally available online. As more digital resources

became available on the web, there was a need to create formal descriptions that could

be read by a computer. They needed a particular standard or schema for metadata

cataloging or indexing. Consequently, an all-purpose scheme known as the Dublin Core

was developed in Dublin, Ohio at the Online Computer Library Catalog’s headquarters

in 1995 by a team of librarians and information professionals. There, a format was

Parnell 3

created to define an information resource description scheme for use in a World Wide

Web environment. Dublin Core is an initiative to create a digital "library card catalog"

for the Web, and is made up of 15 metadata elements that offer expanded cataloging

information and improved document indexing for search engine programs, digital object

description, collection management and metadata exchange. A Dublin Core Metadata

element set encompassed 15 basic text based fields used to describe physical

resources such as books and prints, digital materials such as video, sound, image, or

text files, and composite media such as web pages. Metadata records based on Dublin

Core are intended to be used for online resource description and have become a

standard in the field of library science. Dublin can be used in html, XML, and RDF

formats (Coleman, 2005, p.155).

Literature Review

History

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) was named after Dublin, Ohio, where

a meeting was held in 1995 among the staffs of the OCLC and the National Center for

Supercomputing Applications (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, 2004, p. 1). Fifty-two

researchers and professionals from the fields of library science and computer science

met to achieve consensus on a list of metadata elements that would yield simple

descriptions of data in a wide range of subject areas for indexing and cataloging on the

Internet. The Dublin Core is not intended to replace other resource descriptions, but to

complement them (Needleman, 1998, p.2). According to Needleman’s article,

Standards Update, ―Automatically generated records often contain too little information

to be useful, while manually generated records are too costly to create and maintain for

the large number of electronic documents currently available on the Internet‖ (p. 2). The

Dublin Core fields, ―were intended to mediate between these extremes‖ (p.2).

Dublin Core than became the ―MARC format‖ for the web. It was designed to facilitate

resource discovery and enable Internet searchers to find web pages that more precisely

matched their interests. The idea of Dublin Core was to facilitate indexing of web pages

and library catalogs. Also, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative wanted to create a

Parnell 4

simple system that anyone could use. It does not require the detailed knowledge of

cataloging practices that are typically used for traditional cataloging (El-Sherbini, M.,

2004, p. 242). MARC 21 is a specific cataloging schema used by traditional catalogers.

Dublin Core is supposed to be a simpler version of MARC. The difference is that MARC

records require an ISBD structure with specific fields, punctuation,

Library of Congress subject headings etc, but Dublin Core has simple field listings and

requirements like the ―creator field‖ as opposed to the 100, 110, 111, 700, 710, 711

fields in a MARC Record (Beall, 2004, p. 40). In addition, instead of using tags, fields,

and subfields, typically used in Marc records, Dublin Core uses simple elements

(Coleman, 2005, p. 156). The specific differences between the Dublin Core Element set

and the MARC element set can be seen on the Library of Congress website in the

document titled ―Marc to Dublin Core Crosswalk‖.

The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set includes: Title, Creator, and subject,

Description, Publisher, Contributor, Date Type, Format, Identifier, Source, Language,

Relation, Coverage and Rights, Identifier, and Format (Needleman, 1998, p. 4). In 2005,

audience was added to the list, creating 16 Dublin Core elements (Coleman, 2005, p.

156). Since then, they’ve added other elements to the list. They added the following

elements: provenance, rights holder, instructional method, accrual method, accrual

periodicity, and accrual policy (DCMI, 2005). Of course, these are repeatable and

optional. There are also Canberra Qualifiers which are meant to extend the 15

elements in a standardized way (Needleman, 1998, p. 5).

Supporters

Supporters of Dublin Core claim that the Dublin Core metadata format is the

epitome of simplicity and flexibility. Its simplicity lies in the fact that its elements are

designed to be used by the creators of the resources, not by people who are trained

catalogers or have any knowledge of cataloging to describe the resources. Also Dublin

Core provides core and internationally agreed upon elements that are understood

among varying communities and fields, which allows for some semantic interoperability

(Safari, 2004, p.1). According to its proponents, its simplicity promotes applicability

because it can be adapted as an international standard for resource description and

Parnell 5

discovery on the web.

Critics

However, there are some problems with metadata because of its adaptability.

The problem of having author-generated metadata is that it can be inaccurate and

inconsistent. Supposedly many of the fields were designed with a lack of specificity.

Dublin Core suffered from nonstandard data elements and poor interoperability (Park,

2009, p. 736). One of the major weaknesses of DCMI is the inability to convert data

from Dublin Core into other schemes. Caplan (2003, p. 78-9) includes a chapter on

Dublin core that describes the problems caused by the simplicity and flexibility of the

Dublin Core Schema. She writes:

―Despite the Simplicity of the Dublin Core scheme, certain problems have arisen

repeatedly in applications. One issue concerns the overlap in meaning in the

definition of some elements. Creator can be seen as a particular type of

contributor, and source is a particular type of relation. This has led to confusion

among implementers about when it is appropriate to use one element rather than

another.‖

In his article, ―After Marc, What Then?‖ Leif Andresen (2004) describes an application of

Dublin Core Metadata standard in Denmark. In describing the difficulties of using such

a standard in Danish libraries, archives and museums, he says:

―It is not feasible to use Dublin Core internationally in the sectors, as it is far too

general and unable to cope with specific needs‖(Andresen, 2004, p. 47). He goes on to

say that it is problematic because of its simple format. The DCMI does not require

standard codes. This lack of specificity of standard codes creates inconsistency for

resource discovery (Beall, 2004, p. 41). Dublin Core attempts to solve the problem of

lack of specificity by allowing people the ability to define or extend fields. However,

some believe that the ability to create one’s own fields and qualifiers defeats the

purpose of using Dublin Core as a standard core metadata element set. The truth is

many peoples’ field choices and descriptors can be very different from everyone else’s,

and this causes problems in the conversion of data into other schemas. This makes it

difficult to have content easily cross walked to other metadata schemes (Beall, 2004, p.

Parnell 6

41). Park discusses this particular issue in her article, ―Metadata Creation Practices in

Digital Repositories and Collections: Schemata, Selection Criteria, and Interoperability‖.

She mentions that locally added metadata elements may impede metadata

interoperability across digital repositories and collections when there is a lack of

shareable mechanisms for locally defined additions and variants (Park & Tosaka, 2010,

p. 114). According to Park, ―Dublin Core semantics underscores the lowest common

denominator for resource description‖ (2009, p. 728). This may be due to the fact that

the scheme can be used and tailored by the document authors, who often have no

educational and professional background in cataloging (Park, 2009, p. 728).

Future

According to the NISO, DCMI has received a fair amount of criticism over the

years. Many critics believed that Dublin Core's set of elements was too simple. But

their focus on this has led to misunderstandings about the initiative's purpose and the

nature of Dublin Core (Harper, 2010, p. 1). According to NISO's report, the initiative of

1995-1999 was supposed to be just a part of what could be offered. DCMI has

developed far beyond the 15 sets bearing its name. Today the Dublin Core initiative

has a new set of principles for designing metadata. DCMI recognizes the challenges of

integrating numerous data formats into the linked data environment and is striving to

provide accessible and usable schemas, specifications, and recommendations to

support metadata developers and practitioners (Harper, 2010, p. 28). The DCMI is

continuing to work on the Dublin Core schema so that they can fix current

interoperability problems.

Bibliography

History of Dublin Core

Reference 1:

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2004). History of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.

Retrieved from: http://dublincore.org/about/history

Parnell 7

Abstract: This contains the history and purpose of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.

Annotation: This article was written by the creators of Dublin Core. This is an

authoritative site on the various aspects of Dublin Core. It was created by the DCMI or

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative which was initiated by the NCSA and OCLC in 1995. It

is recommended as an excellent introductory source for professionals and students

wanting to learn about the origins of Dublin Core.

Database: Google

Technique: Browsing

Search Terms: Dublin core history

Reference 2:

Sugimito, S., Baker, T., & Weibel, S. (2002). Dublin core: Process and principles. In

E.P. Lim,S.

Foo, C., Khoo, H. Chen, E., Fox, S., Urs, & T. Costantino (Eds.), Lecture Notes in

Computer Science: vol. 2555. Digital Libraries: People, Knowledge and

Technology, (pp. 25-52). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Abstract: “The Dublin Core metadata element set has been widely adopted by cultural

and scientific institutions, libraries, governments, and businesses to describe resources

for discovery on the Internet. This paper provides an overview of its history and

underlying principles and describes the activities of Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

(DCMI) as an organization.‖

(Original published reproduced abstract in its entirety)

Annotation: This is from a book on the International Conference on Digital libraries 5th

edition. The purpose of the conference, ―Digital Libraries: People, Knowledge &

Technology‖ was to develop and implement digital libraries, so that they meet the needs

of the communities they intend to serve. The idea was to build user-centered

Parnell 8

environments by creating policies and procedures to meet the demands of new content,

new technologies, and changing user needs (Lim eds., et al., Preface, 2002).

According to Ulrich's LNCS or Lecture Notes in Computer Science this is a

scholarly/peer reviewed source. It is also an excellent conference series to browse for

current information on various technological advancements in library sciences and

information studies. This particular article addresses Qualified Dublin Core which uses

more specific elements which, ―increases the richness and precision of description‖

(Sugimito et.al, 2002, p. 26). The article also illustrates the different encoding rules sets

one can use with the Dublin Core scheme.

Search Strategy: found on Hagerty library website in http://www.library.drexel.edu/

I used Summon to do this search because I wasn’t sure where to begin and Summon

has so much to offer. I then limited my search by choosing only resources that were

peer reviewed/scholarly and full text journal articles.

Database Used: Summon

Search terms Used: ―Dublin Core‖

Search Method: Keyword

Introduction to Metadata and Dublin Core

Reference 3:

Adamich, T. (2007). Curriculum-based cataloging and the new metadata: Cataloging

beyond

the world of MARC. Knowledge Quest, 35(5), (pp.66-71). Retrieved from Library

Lit & Inf Full Text database.

Abstract:

―From earliest beginnings in the 1990s, cataloging in school libraries is the product of

Parnell 9

three tasks—listing important details about an item (such as author, size, number of

pages), selecting words and phrases that describe the item (such as subject headings,

summary notes), and choosing numbers and codes that place the item on the shelf

(such as Dewey Decimal Classification Number, Cutter numbers or letters, collection

identification). Since the early 1980s, the presentation of cataloging has migrated from

being listed on a card or series of cards to being presented electronically. In its

electronic form, the MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging) format or standard is the

most widely used cataloging presentation standard currently used in school libraries.

This article describes how metadata may change the way cataloging will be done in

libraries. This article also examines the two types of descriptive metadata: (1) the Dublin

Core; and (2) the Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) and Gateway to 21st Century

Skills/GEM Initiative.‖(Contains 1 figure.)


Annotation: Knowledge Quest is a peer reviewed/scholarly journal published by the

American Library Association. Tom Adamich has been a certified teacher-librarian for

over 10 years. He currently serves as the Cataloging Librarian at Robert Morris

University in Pittsburg. His article has excellent practical applications of Dublin Core

schema used to catalog various library resources. It is still a slightly older article;

however many of the examples he gives still applies to the use of Dublin Core today.

Search Strategy: I knew INFOSCI would be a great choice because it encompasses

all of the academic journals pertaining to the field of library science.

Database: Dialog Classic. INFOSCI.

Technique: search phrase

Search String Dublin () core and librar? I then used RD to get unique items and then

Abstract and Ti to get the full abstract.

Reference 4:

Parnell 10

Ahronheim, J. R. (1998). Descriptive metadata: Emerging standards. Journal of

Academic

Librarianship, 24(5), 395. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Abstract: “This article examines emerging descriptive metadata standards of interest

to the academic library community. Standard Generalized Markup Language; Extensible

Markup Language; Dublin Core; Resource Description Framework; Text Encoding

Initiative; Encoded Archival Description; Art and cultural heritage metadata initiatives;

United States government supported standards.‖


Annotation:

The author Judith Ahronheim is the head of the Original Cataloging Unit at the

University of Michigan Graduate Library. She is an authority on cataloging and

metadata standards. This article was published in the Journal of Academic

Librarianship, which is a scholarly/ peer reviewed journal. Although it is not a current

article, it adequately explains the core principles of the Dublin Core Metadata Schemes

that are still used today. It also gives a thorough overview of descriptive data including

the standards for creating and sharing cross-disciplinary metadata. The first part of the

article looks at cross-disciplinary metadata activity and the second part examines

individual communities which are developing standards of interest to the academic

library community (Ahronheim, 1998, p. 395).

The Dublin Core Initiative is mentioned and its effort to standardize description

and resource discovery for the web. Ahronheim also mentions that it fell short of that

goal (1998, p. 397). However, she did mention that with the RDF format, Dublin Core

applications are likely to increase and become a major player in cross-disciplinary

resource discovery on the Internet and within digital libraries (Ahronheim, 1998, p. 397).

Ahronheim includes specific examples of a variety of metadata schemes in

various formats. She also supplies a superb list of various metadata tools and

standards for her readers. That way, professionals can make informed decisions about

Parnell 11

what schemas best suit their organization and collection.

Search Strategy: I used Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts

because of the wealth of articles it contains related to information science. This was an

initial search using this database so I chose a keyword approach. I also chose linked full

text and scholarly/peer reviewed journals between 1998 and 2011 to narrow down my

choices.

Database: EBSCO host Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts

Key word search: "Dublin Core"

Reference 5:

Apps, A, & MacIntyre, R. (2000). Dublin core metadata for electronic journals. In T.

Baker

(Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1923, (ECDL)(pp.93-102). Berlin,

Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Abstract: ―This paper describes the design of an electronic journals application where

the article header information is held as Dublin Core metadata. Current best practice in

the use of Dublin Core for bibliographic data description is indicated where this differs

from pragmatic decisions made when the application was designed. Using this working

application as a case study to explore the specification of a metadata schema to

describe bibliographic data indicates that the use of Dublin Core metadata is viable

within the journals publishing sector, albeit with the addition of some local, domain-

specific extensions.‖


Annotation: According to Ulrich's, LCNS or Lecture Notes in Computer Science this is

a scholarly/peer reviewed source. It is also an excellent series to browse for current

info on various technological advancements in library sciences and information studies.

This article discusses the history, basic principles and problems associated with the

Parnell 12

Dublin Core Metadata Schema. It specifically discusses the issues with homegrown or

local extensions.

Search Technique: I chose to go to the library website and search on Summon for

some articles based on my topic. I found some really good results once I narrowed my

search down to scholarly/peer reviewed full text articles between 1995 and 2010.

Database: Summon

Technique: Browsing

Search terms used: Dublin Core

Reference 6:

Caplan, P. (2003), Metadata fundamentals for all librarians, American Library

Association,

Chicago, IL.

Abstract: “This book discusses the descriptive and non-descriptive forms of metadata

such as TEI Header, Dublin Core, EAD, GILS, ONIX and Data Documentation Initiative

and its applications to actual library functions. It has descriptions and illustrations about

different metadata schemas. The book also addresses the advantages and

disadvantages of these schemas and how they are applied practically in a library

setting.‖

Annotation: The author of the book, Priscilla Caplan, is a systems expert. Her book

has ample and comprehensible descriptions of the various forms of metadata, their

applications, and how librarians can use them. This book is geared towards library

students who need a basic understanding of metadata functions and fundamentals. It is

a slightly older book. However, it is very relevant to metadata concepts and

controversies today.

Relevancy: Caplan's book has a chapter on Dublin Core and on Pages 78-9 she

Parnell 13

discusses the problems with Dublin Core's semantics and the ambiguous scheme that

hinders consistency of accurate application which therefore affects interoperability.

Search Strategy:

Found on the Hagerty library website: http://www.library.drexel.edu/

Database: Summon

Technique: Browsing

Search terms: "metadata fundamentals"

Reference 7:

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

catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 40(3/4), (pp.153-181). doi:

10.1300/J104v40n03_08

Abstract: ―The Dublin Core is an international standard for describing and cataloging

all kinds of information resources: books, articles, videos, and World Wide Web (web)

resources. Sixteen Dublin Core (DC) elements and the steps for cataloging web

resources using these elements and minimal controlled values are discussed, general

guidelines for metadata creation are highlighted, a worksheet is provided to create the

DC metadata records for the library catalog, and sample resource descriptions in DC

are included.‖


Annotation: This article is a from a peer reviewed/scholarly journal according to

Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory. The author, Anita Coleman, is from the

school of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona. She

is an authority in her field. This article is an informative, and clearly written. It

introduces metadata and Dublin Core and teaches you how to create, apply and use

metadata in a library setting. If offers exceptional advice and offers an element-by-

element explanation of how to use the Dublin Core Schema for metadata description.

http://www.library.drexel.edu/

Parnell 14

In the appendix, it offers DC Metadata Creation Forms.

Search Strategy:

I went to the Hagerty library website: http://www.library.drexel.edu/ and searched the

Library Literature and Information database for full text articles. I used the search terms

Dublin Core. I used the literature and information database because I knew I would find

full text articles pertaining to Dublin Core.

Database: Library Literature & Information Full Text

Technique: key word search

Search terms: ―Dublin Core‖

Reference 8:

El-Sherbini, M., & Klim, G. (2004). Metadata and cataloging practices. Electronic

Library, 22(3), (pp. 238-248). doi: 10.1108/02640470410541633

Abstract: “Metadata standards existing today range from very complex to very simple.

Relative simplicity or complexity of metadata standards depends in large part on the

resources for which they were created and the depth of description that is deemed

necessary to make these resources accessible. This paper reviews the differences

between metadata standards and current cataloging practices, and discusses how the

various metadata standards are applied in libraries. In addressing these issues, the

authors introduce definitions of key concepts of metadata and cataloging standards and

provide an overview of the most common metadata schemes. The discussion of current

cataloging practices includes an overview of the most commonly used cataloging

practices and standards, the impact of metadata on library practice and the role of

librarians related to metadata. The authors will discuss the OHIOLINK Electronic Thesis

and Dissertations (ETD) as an example of how Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2nd

(AACR2) and Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC21) are used as metadata to store,

describe and access this unique information resource.‖



Parnell 15

Annotation: This article is written by Magda El-Sherbini and George Klim. Magda El-

Sherbini is in the Cataloging Department at Ohio State University Libraries in Columus

Ohio and George C. Klim is the Director at the OCLC Services Department at

OHIONET in Columbus Ohio. They are authorities in the cataloging field. In addition,

this article was found in the Electronic Library journal, which is a peer

reviewed/academic journal according to Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory.

Also, it is a journal: "Devoted to the applications and implications of new technology,

library automation, user interfaces, and networks on libraries and information centers

worldwide" (Ulrich's description). This article references many notable and important

articles on various metadata schemes and tools.

The article offers a concise and comprehensive overview of metadata and

various metadata schemes like Dublin Core. Definitions of key concepts of cataloging

practices are given. The authors also mention specifically why Dublin Core is an

excellent alternative to MARC21 records, in that it is far less expensive, and its simple

scheme could be used by the author of the source to create a bibliographic record (El-

Sherbine & Klim, 2004, p. 241). However it is noted that while authors can create this

metadata, it should be evaluated and enhanced by trained catalogers.

Search Strategy: Controlled vocabulary search:

First I looked in the Eric thesaurus and found Library sciences and chose the narrower

term ―library‖. I knew Eric would be a great resource for the field of library science.

Database: Eric

Search terms: Libraries and ―Dublin Core‖ in Advanced search

Chose only peer reviewed articles, journal articles between the dates 1995-2011

Reference 9:

El-Sherbini, M., (2001). Metadata and the future of cataloging. Library Review. 50 (1),

(pp.16 – 27). doi: 10.1108/00242530110363217

Parnell 16

Abstract:

―Surveys ongoing metadata projects to identify the types of metadata that exist and how

they are used; compares and analyzes selected metadata elements to illustrate how

they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements; and discusses metadata

standards, Dublin Core, diversity in classification, and the role of the Library of

Congress.‖ (Author/LRW)


Annotation: According to Ulrich’s Library Review is a scholarly/peer reviewed and

referred journal. Also El-Sherbini is an authority in her field. This is an academic

research paper that explores various metadata standards. It compares a variety of

metadata schemas and formats to the MARC 21 format, traditionally used for metadata

resource description. By reading this article, you can get a good idea of how the Dublin

Core metadata fields compare to the MARC 21 fields.

Search Strategy:




Ab and Ti to get the full abstract.

Reference 10:

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

collections: schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. Information

Technology & Libraries, 29(3), (pp.104-116). Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Abstract:

Parnell 17

―This study explores the current state of metadata-creation practices across digital

repositories and collections by using data collected from a nationwide survey of mostly

cataloging and metadata professionals. Results show that MARC, AACR2, and LCSH

are the most widely used metadata schema, content standard and subject-controlled

vocabulary, respectively. Dublin Core (DC) is the second most widely used metadata

schema, followed by EAD, MODS, VRA, and TEI. Qualified DC’s wider use vis-à-vis

Unqualified DC (40.6 percent versus 25.4 percent) is noteworthy. The leading criteria in

selecting metadata and controlled-vocabulary schema are collection-specific

considerations, such as the types of resources, nature of the collection, and needs of

primary users and communities. Existing technological infrastructure and staff expertise

also are significant factors contributing to the current use of metadata schemata and

controlled vocabularies for subject access across distributed digital repositories and

collections. Metadata interoperability remains a major challenge. There is a lack of

exposure of locally created metadata and metadata guidelines beyond the local

environments. Homegrown locally added metadata elements may also hinder metadata

interoperability across digital repositories and collections when there is a lack of

sharable mechanisms for locally defined extensions and variants.‖[ABSTRACT FROM

AUTHOR].


Annotation: Jung-ran Park is an Assistant Professor at the College of Information

Science and Technology at Drexel University and Yuji Tosaka is a Cataloging/Metadata

Librarian at TCNJ Library at the College of New Jersey in Ewing, New Jersey. This

article was published in the Information Technology and Libraries Journal, which is a

scholarly/ peer-reviewed journal according to Ulrich’s.

This article addresses recent studies relating to current metadata creation practices

across digital collections (Park & Tosaka, 2010, p. 104). The authors report on how

metadata and controlled vocabulary schema are being used across various intuitions. It

Parnell 18

also makes suggestions for future studies.

The article confirms that Dublin Core is one of the most widespread used metadata

schemas, used alone in more than half of digital collections, or in combination with other

schemes (Park & Tosaka, 2010, p. 105). This confirms that because of its ease,

adaptability and usefulness Dublin Core is sometimes preferred to MARC 21 for digital

collections cataloging. However, the article states that due to its flexibility and optional

fields, as opposed to the MARC fixed fields, interoperability across digital collections

and repositories suffers.

It also mentions that the current practice of metadata creation is problematic due to its

lack of mechanism of integrating other metadata schemata, content standards and

controlled vocabularies (Park and Tosaka, 2010, p. 106). Specifically, Dublin Core has

semantic ambiguities which causes problems for its users (Park & Tosaka, 2010, p.

109).

This is also a current article because it was published in 2010.

Database Used: dialog classic

Search Strategy:? B INFOSCI

This database included all of these academic journals pertaining to the information

sciences: ERIC, INSPEC, NTIS, Social SciSearch, Dissertation Abs Online 1861-

2011/Feb, Gale Group Magazine, Brit.Education Index, Gale Group Trade & Industry

Library Lit. & Info. Science

I preferred to use INFOSCI since I was looking for all articles by Dr. Park. I knew that

she is an authority in the field and I wanted to find more articles by her.

Database: Dialog

B INFOSCI

Parnell 19

Method: keyword and author search

Search String:? s au=park, jung-ran and dublin (w) core

Reference 11:

Safari, M. (2004). Metadata and the web. Webology, 1(2), Article 7. Retrieved from:

http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a7.html

Abstract: “The rapid increase in the number and variety of resources on the World

Wide Web has made the problem of resource description and discovery central to

discussions about the efficiency and evolution of this medium. The inappropriateness of

traditional schemas of resource description for web resources has encouraged

significant activities recently on defining web-compatible schemas named ―metadata‖.

While conceptually old for library and information professionals, metadata has taken

more significant and paramount role than ever before and is considered as the golden

key for the next evolution of the web in the form of semantic web. This article is

intended to be a brief introduction to metadata and tries to present its overview in the

web.‖


Annotation: According to Ulrich’s, Webology is a peer reviewed/referred journal. This

article is an excellent brief overview of metadata and its applications.

Search Strategy: I browsed the internet for information about Dublin Core. I had very

little knowledge about metadata and Dublin Core before reading this article, so I needed

something basic with good resources listed on its resource page.

Search Method: Browsing

Database: Google

Search Terms: Metadata and the Web

http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a7.html

Parnell 20

Reference 12:

Smeltzler, K.L. (2000) Finding the needle: controlled vocabularies, resource discovery,

and Dublin Core. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services. 24 (2), 205-

215. doi: 10.1016/S1464-9055(00)00131-7

Abstract: “The phenomenal growth of digital resources on the Internet, their lack of

organization, and the deficiency of the search tools currently available, make searching

for information on the Internet comparable to looking for the proverbial ―needle in a

haystack.‖ Developing more effective means of resource discovery and retrieval on the

Internet is increasingly necessary. Dublin Core (DC), a newly developed metadata set

for resource description, has the potential for providing more effective resource

discovery. One major obstacle remains, however: the lack of a systematic approach to

subject access. This paper discusses the need for applying controlled vocabularies to

enhance the discovery of document-like objects on the Internet and outlines some

options for such a process in a distributed environment, with an emphasis on the

enhancement of DC with controlled vocabularies.‖


Annotation:

According to Ulrich’s, this article is from a peer reviewed/scholarly journal. The

author is an authority in her field. She works for the Bibliographic Control and Electronic

Resource Services at Colorado State University.

This article is superbly written and comprehensive. It discusses the purpose of

metadata, the benefits and drawbacks of the Dublin Core schema. The author also

thoroughly compares Dublin Core schema to the MARC schema. She assesses the

advantages and disadvantages of both classification schemes. Even though the article

was written in 2000, it is still applicable to today.

Search Strategy: I did a search in Summons using search terms ―Dublin Core‖. I

chose peer-reviewed/scholarly articles that were full text. I really liked the title of this

Parnell 21

particular article.

Database: Summons

Search terms: Dublin Core

Reference 13:

Zhang, J, & Dimitroff, A. (2004). Internet search engines' response to metadata dublin

core

implementation. Journal of Information Science,30(4), doi:

10.1177/0165551504045851

Abstract: "The research described here examined performance of major search

engines with regard to two groups of web pages: those with metadata and those without

metadata. Introduction of metadata Dublin Core, especially the Subject element, should

reduce irretrievability of a web page and, subsequently, increase its visibility. The

visibility of a web page in a search engine results list is defined and used in this study to

measure irretrievability performance of major search engines. Results show there are

significant differences among these two groups in most search engines. The reasons for

the differences are analyzed."


Annotation: An informative and current article from a peer reviewed/academic journal

about the capabilities of Dublin core and irretrievability. This article focuses on the

positive aspects of Dublin Core.

Search Strategy: found on Hagerty library website

Database: Summon

Technique: Browsing


Parnell 22

Criticisms of Dublin Core

Reference 14:

Andresen, L. (2004). After MARC – what then?. Library Hi Tech, 22 (1), 40 – 51. doi:

10.1108/07378830410524486

Abstract: ―The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and outlines how

future cataloguing practice and bibliographic records might look. Background and basic

functionality of the MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC is

manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated through a comparison between

the MARC21 format and the Danish MARC format ―danMARC2‖. It is argued that

present cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on the Paris

principles and that ―functional requirements for bibliographic records‖ (FRBR) would

serve as a more solid and user-oriented platform for future development of cataloguing

codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that MARC is a library-specific format,

which results in neither exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other

texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical platform for a model for future

registrations, consisting of some core data and different supplements of data necessary

for different sectors and purposes.‖


Annotation: Library High Tech is a peer/reviewed scholarly journal according to

Ulrich’s database. The article was written by a notable information professional. Leif

Andersen is a Library Advisory Officer of the Danish National Library Authority,

Copenhagen and Chair of the Danish Standards Technical Committee for Information

and Documentation in Denmark. Leif Andersen discusses the differences between

MARC records and Dublin Core records, and addresses Dublin Core controversies.

Search Strategy: Searched for journal title Library High Tech, a scholarly journal

Parnell 23

pertaining to digital libraries and computer science. I thought this would be a superb

resource.

Search Method: Title Search

Journal searched: Library High Tech in Emerald journals

Search terms used: Content = Journals, (Dublin core in All fields)

Reference 15:

Beall, J. (2004). Dublin Core: An obituary. Library Hi Tech News, 21 (8), 40 – 41. doi:

10.1108/07419050410567399

Abstract: “The Dublin Core Metadata Standard was conceived illegitimately, had a

troubled life, and has finally met its demise. Developed as a tool for online resource

discovery, the standard waned after the arrival of Google. Because its fields were

designed with a lack of specificity, Dublin Core suffered from nonstandard data

elements and poor interoperability. Also, the poor organization behind the initiative

contributed to its failure. Dublin Core will likely soon be replaced by an emerging

standard, the Metadata Object Description Schema.‖


Annotation: This article is from Library High Tech Journal, which is not a scholarly/

peer reviewed source. However, I found Jeffrey Beall’s article to be very

comprehensive and informative, although somewhat opinionated. Also, Jeffrey Beall is

an authority on cataloging. He is a cataloging librarian at Auraria Library at the

University of Colorado in Denver. His article is an excellent beginning article to the

problems with Dublin Core. He also has some excellent references listed in his article.

Database: Summon

Technique: Browsing


http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1108/07419050410567399

Parnell 24

Reference 16:

Chalmers, M. (2002). Metadata: Pure and simple, or is it?. Australian Library Journal,

51(3),

233-37. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Abstract: “Discusses issues concerning metadata in Web pages based on

experiences in a vocational education center library in Queensland (Australia).

Highlights include Dublin Core elements; search engines; controlled vocabulary;

performance measurement to assess usage patterns and provide quality control over

the vocabulary; and considerations given the timeframe for the project's completion.‖

(LRW)


Annotation: This article is a firsthand report of the frustrations of using the Dublin Core

scheme. It is very comprehensive. The author of this article has been a cataloging

librarian at South Bank Institute of TAFE and runs workshops on cataloging at

Southbank. The Australian Library Journal is a referred/peer reviewed scholarly journal.

Even though this article is a personal account, I think it is a fantastic example of how the

Dublin Core scheme can be frustrating even for a professional and experienced

cataloger.

Search Strategy: I knew INFOSCI would be a great choice because it encompasses

all of the academic journals pertaining to the field of library science.




Abstract and Ti to get the full abstract

Reference 17:

Parnell 25

Needleman, M. (1998). Standards update. Serials Review, 24(3/4), 131. doi:

10.1016/S0098- 7913(99)80012-4

Abstract: “Discusses issues related to standards in the library and information retrieval

arena. Focus on the Dublin Core (DC) Metadata work; Core set of metadata elements

to describe networked resources; Impediments to successful deployment of the DC;

Development of the Warwick framework; Application of the DC element set to image

resource description; Definition of the Canberra qualifiers.‖


Annotation: This article is written by Mark Needleman, a software development

specialist and column editor of the Serials Review. The Serials Review is a peer

reviewed, scholarly journal geared towards Library Science and information

professionals. Serials Review covers the practical aspects of collecting, managing and

publishing serials information, and provides a forum for emerging and theoretical issues

of importance to librarians, publishers and others in the serials community.

This particular article talks about the practical applications of Dublin Core and its

purposes and benefits. It adequately breaks down the elements of Dublin Core and its

applications in a practical way. It is an excellent article for those just learning about

Dublin Core, its purpose and schema.


Search Strategy: I chose to use the Library Science Database LISTA. It is an

adequate source for students in the Library Science field. The search string I used was

"Dublin Core" and issues. I used Boolean operators. I then narrowed my search results

by choosing only scholarly journals and full text links.

Database used: LISTA

Search Terms: “Dublin Core‖ and issues

Parnell 26

Reference 18:

Park J.-R., Childress E. (2009). Dublin core metadata semantics: An analysis of the

perspectives of information professionals. Journal of Information Science, 35 (6),

727- 739. doi: 10.1177/0165551509337871

Abstract:

―This study examines Dublin Core (DC) metadata semantics drawn from the

perspectives and experiences of cataloguing and metadata professionals. The study

ascertains the extent of difficulty in applying the DC metadata elements encountered by

these professionals and examines factors engendering such difficulties during the

metadata application process. Comments drawn from the survey participants (n = 141)

show that conceptual ambiguities (41%) and semantic overlaps (45%) of the surveyed

DC metadata elements are the most frequently cited factors causing difficulty and

confusion, in turn leading to variant interpretations of DC metadata elements. This has

the potential to bring forth inconsistent and inaccurate applications and implementation

of the DC standard across institutions which can directly affect semantic interoperability

across digital repositories. The high degree of difficulty (55.3%) engendered by the

Relation field indicates that further examination of this element is needed.‖


Annotation: Jung-ran Park is an Assistant Professor at the College of Information

Science and Technology at Drexel University. This article was published in the

Information Technology and Libraries Journal, which is a scholarly/ Peer-Reviewed

Journal according to Ulrich's. This article is relevant in that it addresses the issues of

Dublin Core metadata semantics. It is a study aimed at examining the difficulty of using

Dublin Core metadata elements experienced by cataloguing and metadata

professionals. It also examines the factors that cause such difficulties during the

metadata creation process.

Search Strategy: I preferred to use INFOSCI since I was looking for all articles by Dr.

Parnell 27

Park. I knew that she is an authority in the field and I wanted to find more articles by

her. I knew INFOSCI would be a great choice because it encompasses all of the

academic journals pertaining to the field of library science.

Database: Dialog Classic

B INFOSCI

Method: keyword and author search

Search String:? s au=park, jung-ran and Dublin (w) core

Future of Dublin Core

Reference 19:

Alijani, S.A, Abdolrasool J., (2009). Dublin core metadata element set usage in national

libraries' web sites. The Electronic Library. 27 (3), 441 – 447. doi:

10.1108/02640470910966880

Abstract:

Purpose – ―Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) is a standard metadata

schema for describing electronic records, documents and web resources. Librarians

have been influenced on its initial structure most efficiently. The purpose of this paper is

to evaluate the librarians' tendency and amount of their attention to this standard in

national libraries of the world.‖

Design/methodology/approach – ―This paper reports an empirical study of how 70

National Library web sites (NLWs) from 62 countries use DCMES. The source of each

library web site main page is viewed and the data gathered with a formed checklist. The

paper is conducted to determine whether or not DCMES is used within NLWs. In this

paper DCMES is divided into three: content description; intellectual property and rights;

and structural manifestation. The tendency measurement of NLWs' designers to each

purpose is the second objective of this paper.‖

Findings – ―According to the results, 14 of all the NLWs use DCMES (20 percent).

Parnell 28

These 14 NLWs tendency ratio to each of the purposes are: content description 49

percent; intellectual properties and rights 57 percent; and structural manifestation 70

percent. The least-used Dublin Core (DC) elements are source, relation and contributor

– being used only once, and the most-used DC element is title – used in 13 NLWs. The

National Library of Serbia uses the most DC elements, using all 15, and the

Bibliothèque Nationale Suisse uses the least DC elements by using two.‖

Originality/value – ―The results presented in this paper show that most of the national

libraries, the main libraries of the world, do not pay much attention to DCMES in web

pages' designation. On the other hand, some other national libraries using DCMES do

not consider the main purpose of DCMES – content description – to be more important

than its other purposes. Ultimately, the paper presents five probable reasons why most

NLWs do not use DCMES.‖


Annotation: This article shows that Dublin Core is not the most widely used schema for

websites in national libraries. The article has been published in a scholarly/peer

reviewed journal. It is a superb academic study based on previous tangible and

concrete research. The article is current because it was written in 2009. Alireza Saadat

Alijani is from the Technical Services Department, Information Center and Central

Library, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, and Abdolrasool Jowkar is

from the Department of Library and Information Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

They are authorities in their field.

Search String: found on Hagerty library website: http://www.library.drexel.edu/

Database: Summon

Technique: Browsing

Search terms Used: Dublin Core

Reference 20:


Parnell 29

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

Standards Quarterly, 22(1), Retrieved from

http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/free/FE_DCMI_Harper_isqv22no1.pdf

Abstract: ―This article discusses how DCMI has grown far beyond its initial history of

15 elements bearing its name. It is now one of the leading metadata scheme designers

and committed to interoperability and adaptability. This article explains how DCMI is

going about harmonizing metadata standards and guides a variety of audiences along

in an interoperability continuum.‖


Annotation: This article is from a trade journal. It has some valuable information about

where DCMI is headed in the future. The article is written by Corey A. Harper. He has

been involved in DCMI since 2002 and he is a Metadata Services Librarian at New York

University. Of course the article may be considered biased, because Corey Harper has

been active in the DCMI Library and Registry Communities and serves on the Program

Committee for DCMI Conferences. But, it is an informative article with great resource

citations for further study about the future of Dublin Core. The author presents a

convincing argument as to why the Dublin Core initiative is a trustworthy professional

organization that is committed to improving interoperability of its metadata scheme,

element set, and syntax.

Search Strategy: I searched for ISQ, otherwise known as Information Standards

Quarterly search on the internet. It was recommended to me by a friend of mine. I then

searched the terms ―Dublin Core‖ searched within that particular title.

Database: ISQ

Search terms: Dublin Core

My final thoughts

http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/free/FE_DCMI_Harper_isqv22no1.pdf

Parnell 30

What did you learn about information structure?

Throughout the course and with this project, I learned how databases are

organized and why certain documents are retrieved. Basically, a database is a

structured collection of information about single entities such as persons or companies.

The information is then organized in a series of fields. The fields are then generally

populated using either search terms or keywords. We have to do effective searches so

that we can access these records with the fields matching our specific information. The

computer reads the language you give it, so you have to be as specific as possible. If

the index matches the search terms I use, relevant documents pertaining to my search

will be retrieved. Many websites and databases simply search for the matching text

strings in its index. There is no intelligence or inference involved. The information is

simply retrieved if it matches what is included in that particular document or journal. So

I had to be precise as possible. It was challenging to learn how to use the appropriate

language to match the language that was in the database record.

What did you learn about this topic?

I learned that Dublin Core is a metadata scheme of 15 elements used to describe

data available on the web and that its classification scheme is simple enough so that

people who aren’t professional catalogers can use it. I learned that its simplicity and

flexibility is good in that it can be used by just about anyone, but this also causes

problems because the fields aren’t set in stone. People can use any of the elements.

They do not have to be as specific as they would be with a MARC record. This causes

problems for retrieval and interoperability between other metadata classification

schemes. Given the many issues with interoperability and the Dublin Core initiative, I

have concluded that some changes need to be made not only to the use of the fields,

but also the fields that are available. Users need to work harder to ensure that there are

standards that are going to be met. That way, there is complete interoperability and

cross-walking between Dublin Core other metadata schemes.

This was a fascinating topic to pick. I learned quite a bit from this assignment. I

feel like I definitely have a lot to learn about various metadata schemes, and particularly

Dublin Core. This particular assignment was a great introduction to metadata. I am

Parnell 31

taking the Metadata course next term with Dr. Park. Now, after having completed this

assignment, I feel well prepared for her course. Also, I really enjoyed reading Dr. Park’s

journal articles on this particular topic.

What did you learn about searching?

I learned a great deal about searching through this assignment. I learned the

importance of thinking of synonyms and search strings and techniques before

conducting the search. I also learned a variety of ways of searching methods like using

truncation, Boolean and proximity operators and controlled vocabulary. Having

completed this project, I feel more comfortable searching within various databases and

deep web resources. I feel I have a better understanding of what they have to offer as

well.

What did you learn about this assignment?

I also learned how to evaluate journal articles effectively for currency, authority,

relevancy, accuracy, coverage, and objectivity. I learned then how to write up

annotations that critically evaluated journal articles based on these criteria.

I learned how to effectively create an annotation with concise phrases. I learned

that I should comment on accuracy, factual errors, omissions, timeliness, biases,

readability, and the author’s credentials. I must write in an active voice, to be brief and

clear and include information the reader would want to know about the source.

Ultimately, this particular project was extraordinarily helpful in teaching me to

become an effective online researcher. It also helped me accomplish some of the things

I wanted to learn when I did the IPL2 project last term.

In the end, I learned how to be a more effective librarian by defining search

criteria, selecting possible resources for the topic, and assessing the credibility and

relevance of sources. Completing this project helped me become more effective at

assimilating, interpreting and writing about the information in a scholarly manner.

Parnell 32

Academic Honesty Statement

I certify that:

· This paper/project/exam is entirely my own work.

· I have not quoted the words of any other person from a printed source or a website

without indicating what has been quoted and providing an appropriate citation.

· I have not submitted this paper / project to satisfy the requirements of any other

course.

Sarah Parnell

3/13/11

drexel universitysgp33/eport/documents/dublinfinal.pdf · drexel university dublin core ... records...

Documents