january 2009

Volume 4, no. 2January 2009

ISSN 17479258

ALISSQuarterly

Special issue: New ways of supporting learners andresearchers in the Social Sciences II

Social Software

Facebook at the University of Warwick; Delicious at the Institute of Education;Facebook at the University of Wolverhampton

Podcasting

Oxford Brookes University Library projects

Repositories

Welsh Repository Network project; POCKET project

Resource description

Cataloguers and MARC 21

ADVERTISING: Mail your publicity with the next issue. For £80 you can reach 350library and information workers in government departments, universities, social serv-ices departments, voluntary associations, research organisations, professional bodiesetc.

BACK ISSUES still available (£14 each):

Cheques payable to ALISS (payment with order)

Editor: Heather Dawson, British Library of Political and Economic Science, 10 Portugal Street,London WC2A 2HD. Email: [email protected]

Printed by Reliance Meridian Print Ltd. Tel. 01623 623416 ([email protected])

Association of Librarians and Information professionals in the Social Sciences

ALISS QuarterlyVolume 4 no.2 January 2009

Special issue: New ways of supporting learners andresearchers in the Social Sciences II

EditorialHeather Dawson

Social Software

Using Facebook Pages to reach users: the experiences of University ofWolverhamptonJo Alcock, resources Librarian, University of Wolverhampton.

In Your Facebook, Not In Your Face.

Katharine Widdows, Science Information Assistant University of Warwick Library

A delicious.com taster: case studies from the Institute of EducationGwyneth Price. Institute of Education, London.

Podcasting

The evolution of a podcast: printed guided tour to audio tour and beyond

David Bell, Assistant Subject Librarian; Debbie Lenihan, Assistant Subject Librarian;Steve Burholt, E-learning Systems DeveloperOxford Brookes University

Repositories

How theWest was won:Providing repositories across the principality ofWales

Stuart Lewis, Repositories Support Project / Welsh Repository Network, AberystwythUniversity and Hannah PayneRepositories Support Project, Aberystwyth University

1

_____________________________________________________ ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009

EDITORIAL

Welcome to the latest edition of ALISS Quarterly. It has been published byALISS (Association of Librarians and Information Professionals in the SocialSciences) .In our October 2008 edition we focused upon new ways of supporting ourusers using web 2.0 and other new technologies.This proved such a fruitful area that we are again using this issue to highlight anumber of new innovations.The first section contains articles from staff at the University ofWarwick andthe University ofWolverhampton which describe their experiences in usingFacebook to communicate with their users.This is followed by an article whichdescribes how delicious social bookmarking can be used effectively to promoteinformation literacy.The issue then highlights two new open access repositories,TheWelshrepositories network which is an exiting new project involving collaborationbetween colleges inWales and the POCKET project which is seeking to createopen access HE educational materials for independent learners.Finally the issue concludes with some interesting new research relating toresource access in the digital age. It focuses specifically upon opinions aboutcataloguing standards and their relevancy .Remember that you can keep up to date with ALISS news by subscribing toour free electronic mailing list LIS_SOCIAL SCIENCE athttp://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/LIS-SOCIALSCIENCE.html . Have you seen ournew website at: http://www.alissnet.org.uk

We hope you enjoy the issue!

Heather Dawson.ALISS Secretary

ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009 _____________________________________________________


2 3


Using Facebook Pages to reach users:the experiences of WolverhamptonJo Alcock resources Librarian, University of Wolverhampton

Introduction

Social networking websites have been steadily gaining popularity over the lastfew years.A recent OFCOM report (OFCOM, 2008) demonstrated that 22%of adults in the UK had registered with a social networking site (the figure ishighest for 16-24 year olds and decreases with age). Facebook is, at present,the most visited social networking site and has over 130 million active users(Facebook, 2008a).This article shares the experiences of University ofWolverhampton’s pilot project into the use of Facebook pages for academiclibraries.

Rationale

During 2007, we noticed that many of our students using PCs in the UniversityofWolverhampton Learning Centres were regular visitors of Facebook. Eachmember of the University is given a University e-mail address as well as accessto ourVLE, but from talking to students, I found that some were choosing touse Facebook as the platform to communicate with their cohort and organisegroup work.Academic staff had also started to use Facebook, mainly as a forum for socialinteraction within their classes but also as a way for students to communicatewith them. Some libraries had been using Facebook to set up a profile for thelibrary. However, Facebook regulations did not permit this (profiles should befor individuals only) and many were closed. In November 2007, Facebookbegan Facebook Pages which is designed for businesses and organisations(including libraries) to create a presence. By creating a Facebook page ratherthan a profile, other Facebook members can become a “fan” and be sentupdates via Facebook.This is one way of reaching users where they already areso we began to investigate creating a Facebook page for our Learning Centres.

Concerns

There were a number of concerns with creating a presence for the LearningCentres in Facebook. One common concern is that students may not want usthere and feel it is an invasion of their personal or private space (Phipps, 2007).However, with Facebook pages the user themselves must actively choose tovisit the page and can opt to join as a fan if they would like to. Even if they do,they can set their privacy settings so that other users of the page (such asLearning Centre staff) can either see a limited profile (set by the user) or areunable to see the profile at all. Security has been a major issue for Facebook;privacy settings are now far more robust (Facebook, 2008b).


4 5


Another concern was that the Learning Centres may get negative commentsfrom users.We initially decided to set the page so that communication wasonly one way to prevent this, but have recently agreed to enable users to givefeedback on our services via the Facebook page. If we do receive criticism wecan hopefully act upon it, and if there are inappropriate comments it is possibleto delete them.

With the addition of another web presence, concerns about the amount ofstaff time spent updating the page were considered, but at present this time isminimal.The page itself remains fairly static (apart from automatic updates viaRSS feeds) and any updates sent to fans are fairly short and usually taken frominformation on the latest news, from e-mails, or from our Electronic ResourcesNewsletter.

Another issue is the stability and popularity of Facebook.As is always the casewith external software, there is an inherent risk which must be taken intoconsideration. Facebook may cease to exist altogether or Facebook Pages maybe stopped. Facebook’s popularity with our users may deteriorate in whichcase we would question investing time in our presence.

Establishing and developing the page

After analysing the pros and cons of a Learning Centre Facebook page, it wasdecided to run a pilot project.The page itself was created during December2007; our Marketing and Communications department have a corporateaccount within Facebook so helped set up the page. It includes a photograph,some general information (opening times, locations, website etc.), and linksthrough to different sections of our website, such as subject resources and theOPAC catalogue.A number of libraries have since been in touch about theQuick Links box on their page; it was created using the FBML application andwriting HTML to create the links.

We have a number of subject blogs written by subject librarians.To incorporatethe RSS feeds from these on the page, the Blog RSS Feed Reader applicationwas used. In order to reduce the amount of space used and only display themost recent posts, I usedYahoo! Pipes to combine the RSS feeds from each ofthe blogs; this creates a new RSS feed which you can then use in Blog RSS FeedReader.

The page is also used to help promote our drop-in information skills sessions.We use Google Calendar to enable us to embed the calendar into our websitewhich immediately reflects any changes made, so we added the GoogleCalendar application to our page. Unfortunately, the application opens thecalendar on a different page, which is not totally intuitive. Because of this,each event has also been added to Facebook Events which are displayed onthe page, although this was a fairly time-consuming process and duplicatesthe work.

A number of search applications have been developed for use within Facebook;JSTOR and COPAC search boxes have been added to our page. In the future itis possible that we may use our proxy server to enable University ofWolverhampton users to authenticate and search databases from Facebook.Some Universities such as Loughborough have developed library searchapplications (searching OPACs, institutional repositories and federated searchengines) within Facebook; this is also something we may look at in the future.

The page now has over 200 fans, and the number is increasing.This has beenachieved with limited marketing; we have a link from the Contact Us sectionof our website and a screensaver on the PCs in our central Learning Centre.There are a number of other marketing methods in both print and on the webwhich we may utilise in future but have not yet done so due to the nature ofthe pilot project.

Updates are sent to fans as and when necessary, at an average of one updateper month.We recognise that users do not wish to receive messages toooften, and therefore only send updates when they will be relevant to a widerange of users. Updates include letting users know our opening times overvacation periods, notifying them of new resources, and promoting events heldin Learning Centres.

Conclusion

Our Facebook pilot project is now coming to an end; a progress reportincluding future recommendations will be presented in the next couple ofmonths when we will decide if and how to further develop our presencewithin Facebook or other social networking sites.Although no formal feedbackhas been collated, informal feedback from fans of the page has been positive.We appreciate that not all our users on Facebook will want to use it foracademic purposes, but for those who do they seem to appreciate our


6 7


presence. According to the statistics on Facebook Insights, we currentlyaverage around 15 daily page views.

For anyone considering setting up a Facebook page for their library service, asthe page itself is minimal effort and can be both an effective marketing methodand a tool for gathering user feedback, I would recommend it; however only ifyour users are already using Facebook.

References

Facebook (2008a) Statistics [online]. California:Facebook [accessed 12 December 2008].Available from: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.

Facebook (2008b) Privacy Policy [online]. California: Facebook. Updated 26November 2008 [accessed 12 December 2008].Available from: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?ref=pf.

Phipps, L. (2007)Web 2.0 and social software: an introduction [online]. JISC.Updated September 2007 [accessed 5 December 2008].Available from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/web2socialsoftwarev1.aspx

OFCOM (2008) Social networking: a quantitative and qualitative researchreport into attitudes, behaviours and use [online]. OFCOM. Updated 2 April2008 [accessed 12 December 2008].Available from:http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/.

Useful links

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com

University ofWolverhampton Learning Centre’s Facebook page:http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/facebook

Loughborough’s search applications:http://apps.facebook.com/lborolibrary/?ref=ts

InYour Facebook, Not InYour FaceKatharine Widdows

Science Information Assistant University of Warwick Library

In November 2007, following a “Just do it” style presentation from SeniorLibrary Management onWeb 2.0 possibilities I created a Facebook Page forWarwick University Library. Just to see what happened. The page took lessthan a couple of hours to set up, play about with, and make available - muchless time than it must take many librarians to create, send out and collate datafrom the kind of questionnaires I now frequently receive asking how I did it!


8 9


For anyone who is unsure about what Facebook is, it is a social web site wheremembers can interact in a myriad of different ways online. Each member has aProfile where they post information about themselves and these Profiles formthe platform for much of the interaction which takes place.They can sharephotos and videos, set up RSS blog feeds, converse in live chat, set up interestgroups, organise events, write on discussion boards, play games, exchangevirtual hugs, throw pies at each other and bite each other’s imaginary vampires(yes, really, they can) - the list goes on and on. . .Facebook Pages were created in order to allow organisations and businessesto have a Facebook presence without using “Profiles” which are intended forthe use of individual people. Pages allow multiple people to have edit rightswithout the need to share a password.They also provide administrators withusage statistics and allow for all that targeted marketing (at a price) whichLibraries so far have avoided.

TheWarwick Library Page has now been live for a year and has changed anddeveloped greatly during that time.This has been possible because of increasedstudent interest and because of the way that Facebook functionality continuallydevelops and evolves. Updating the Page is quick and easy and any mistakes canbe quickly removed or rectified.

The involvement of Libraries with Facebook has been a little controversial,with the sceptics arguing that, as Facebook is primarily used as a social space,it is an encroachment on that space to put academic or commercial contentthere. With this in mind, we asked our Students’ Union atWarwick for theiropinion about us getting involved and they couldn’t have been more positive. Infact they are now linking from their Facebook Pages to ours, and hosting ourvideos on their Freshers’ Pages. But more generally, I think this argument isout of date. In 2007 Facebook membership ceased to be the exclusive domainof University students and was opened up to anyone with a registered emailaddress (1).This of course makes it very profitable advertising space and soFacebook is now filled with sophisticatedly targeted in-your-face ads foreverything from apples to Zanzibar. Libraries have not (so far) used thisaggressive marketing approach (perhaps partly because you have to pay forit). Library offerings on Facebook are generally confined to Pages andApplications. If you are not looking for us, you are unlikely to know weare there. We are in your Facebook, not in your face.With minimaladvertising byWarwick - relying mostly on the viral marketing which happensas a result of being on Facebook anyway - theWarwick Library FacebookPage has (in a year) gathered 770 self-selected “Fans” to date(2).

If you are looking for us, we are easy to find, and once you have addedyourself as a Fan ofWarwick University Library we can contact you with“Updates” to tell you about new services, vacation loan periods, changes toopening hours, competitions and anything else we feel you should know about.And if you get sick of hearing from us you can switch our Updates off withouthaving to remove yourself from our list of Fans.

Our Fans also have a range of useful tools at their fingertips every time theylog into Facebook.They have direct links to the Library’s subject specificresource pages, they can access photos and videos we post (very usefulfollowing our recent major refurbishment), search some of our bibliographicdatabases and access COPAC andWorldCat.And the functionality we can offerchanges and grows as Facebook evolves.The most recent addition to our Pageis an Application which allows us to RSS all three of our Subject Teams blogsinto Facebook.

As well as Pages and Profiles, Facebook is choc-full of Applications.Applicationsare gadgets which members can add to their Profiles which allow users to doanything and everything from calculating their Body Mass Index to comparingtheir movie preferences with friends and sending each other plants for theirvirtual gardens …or even searching their Library’s catalogue.

Our Library Management System Co-ordinator found some code posted on anLMS forum by Ryerson University Library which could be adapted to build aFacebook catalogue search application forWarwick. It took our SystemsSpecialist less than half a day to build, test and launch the application, whichcurrently has 44 fans, 46 monthly active users (this is higher during term time)and a total of 663 people who have installed it (3).

Once into the catalogue these users then have all kinds of additionalWeb 2.0functionality and mash ups such as the option to add catalogue record links totheir del.ici.ous accounts, link to the Internet Movie Database to view clips andsynopses of DVDs we have in stock, and access Amazon content such as bookreviews etc. Our Facebook Application is now also acting as a gateway into lotsof otherWeb 2.0 gadgets which have now been employed within our OPACthanks to our forward-thinking Metadata Librarians.A Facebook presence ismuch more than a presence on Facebook.

When the project started I fully expected almost all of our fans would beundergraduates, and a few curious librarians from other institutions. However,

ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009_____________________________________________________

10 11


a quick look down the list of Fans today shows me a high number ofWarwickpostgraduates, staff and alumni. Many of our Fans do not disclose theirrelationship to the University, and so we will never really know who is usingour Facebook service. But, knowing that researchers and postgraduates aresigning up as Fans tells us that we could, if we chose to, advertise our targetedpostgraduate portfolio as well as our more general services.

So far very little energy has been invested in our Facebook project, and we arealready seeing returns in the form of a growing base of online Fans we caneasily contact and a raised online profile. Statistics from our official web siteshow that the links from our Facebook Page are being used to access oursubject specific resources, perhaps not as much as we would like, but it ishappening. So we are starting to consider future possibilities for Facebookinvolvement. Ideas being thrown around include the creation of a FinesCalculator Application and the possibility of fielding library enquiries andfeedback through a discussion board.Who knows, perhaps by this time nextyear our Facebook fans will be pitting their Virtual Subject Librarians againsteach other in a battle of search-skills prowess.

References

1. Phillips S.A brief history of Facebook. Guardian News and Media Limited;2007 [updated 28th August 2007; cited 2008 17th November 2008];Available from:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia.

2. University OfWarwick. University ofWarwick Library Facebook Page.2008 [cited 2008 12th December 2008];Available from: http: //www.facebook.com/pages/Coventry-United-Kingdom/University-Of-Warwick-Library/6168162503.

3. Statistics taken from University ofWarwick Application Admin pages(unpublished) [accessed 5th December 2008]

A delicious.com taster:case studies from the Institute of Education

Gwyneth Price. Institute of Education, London.

My interest in the use of social software, and specifically the social bookmarkingsite delicious (www.delicious.com), developed from my involvement in theLassie project, which explored how social software might enhance distancelearners' use of libraries(see http://clt.lse.ac.uk/Projects/LASSIE.php )

This article does not explain how to use delicious, which is described on itshome page as “the biggest collection of bookmarks in the universe…” As wellas proving extremely useful for sharing resources with the project team Ifound that delicious became an essential tool for organising my personal andprofessional web links.

This paper will look at three case studies using delicious in slightly differentways; firstly as a way for students to share ideas and resources; secondly as adifferent way to encourage information literacy skills; and thirdly as anetworking tool for a professional group.

1. The PGCE project.

In the summer of 2007 I made contact with a new course tutor on thePrimary PGCE course at the Institute of Education (IoE) and we discusseddifferent uses for social software.We decided that it would be useful to seewhether students on a course of this nature, which involves practicalclassroom teaching as well as academic study, would find a tool such asdelicious attractive and beneficial.We agreed to select a shared tag which allthe students (about 200) would be made aware of. In order to provide astarting point I entered about 25 items from the course reading list, plus a fewothers which I wanted to recommend, with the tag ioepgce2007.The studentswere encouraged to add additional web resources which they found useful fortheir learning and teaching, again using the ioepgce2007 tag as well as furthertags to organise their material.The project began in October 2007 and got offto a fairly slow start; when I talked with the students in December they werestruggling with the concept of tagging and it was obvious that key wordsearching was similarly a mystery to them. Some discussion clarified this forthem but with more time an exercise using Flickr, similar to that described byHoffman and Polkinghorne (2008), could have been helpful.


13


12

By July 2008 there were 566 items with the ioepgce2007 tag. In exploringthese and considering why they might have been selected it was useful todivide them into the popular (ie 700+ other users of delicious had taggedthem) and the unusual and unexpected.The popular included Futurelab,Primary Resources UK,Teachers’ TV, Maths is fun, Intute,Turning the Pages(British Library), Surveymonkey, RSS in Plain English onYouTube,ARKive: imagesof life on earth.There seemed little to worry about in terms of the quality andapplicability of these resources. Some interesting (for me) resources includedPotatoes for Schools (produced by the Potato Council), “Good morning” inmore than 250 languages and Fascinating fireflies (on the Crayola website).YouTube is a source of some dubious material including Dave Allen “Telling thetime” (very funny but probably infringing copyright) and some fascinating ideassuch as using aWiimote to create a £40 multi-touch interactive whiteboard. Itwas also interesting to discover links to other PGCE student activities, such asthe University of Northampton Primary PGCE blog.All these resources areeasy to find using the delicious search facility.

2. Information Literacy

My initial use of delicious in information literacy sessions with students was asa bookmarking site.As I work in a predominantly post-graduate institution Igenerally include suggestions about using EndNote to save the results ofliterature searches. However with our in-service B.Ed students I decided tosubstitute some suggestions about using social bookmarking sites, particularlydelicious. Students have been almost unanimously pleased to discover such aresource and collect resources with alacrity but I hadn’t anticipated howquickly some of the more internet savvy would discover the search facility onthe site. Because delicious is evidently used by many teachers and trainees it isan excellent source for practical resources which are not submitted to journalsand delicious is an excellent complement to British Education Index and ourlibrary catalogue which we generally recommend as key resources for ourstudents.Tags used by teachers are likely to be relevant and specific to theirneeds so delicious may well prove more effective than Google in specificcontexts and students seem to find it easier to consider quality issues whenthey are aware that material has been posted by people rather than found by amachine. Delicious may well have wider uses for exploring information literacyat undergraduate level.

3.Professional Networking

My third experiment with delicious has been its use for sharing resources with aprofessional network or Enquiry Desk team.This is akin to its regular use for

sharing bookmarks with conference attendees, e.g.http://delicious.com/GwynethP/LISEconf but I had hoped that members of thegroup would add additional material.Although colleagues are quite interestedin principle, in practice it is as difficult to remember to collect resources in thisway as it is to update a blog.As we all become more experienced with using arange of social software tools it is likely we will consider it normal to shareour findings in different ways. I’m sure there are many other ways to usedelicious which we’ll find different ways of sharing.

Reference

Hoffman, C. & Polkinghorne, S. (2008) “Sparking Flickrs of insight intocontrolled vocabularies and subject searching” in Godwin, P. & Parker, J. (eds)Information Literacy meets Library 2.0. Facet Publishing


1514


The evolution of a podcast:printed guided tour to audio tour and beyond

David Bell, Assistant Subject Librarian; Debbie Lenihan, Assistant Subject Librarian;Steve Burholt, E-learning Systems Developer

Oxford Brookes University

In the beginningThe podcast for theWheatley Campus Library at Oxford Brookes wasdeveloped from an existing paper guide.Although guided library tours hadtaken place at the larger Headington campus, there were insufficient staffavailable atWheatley to run undergraduate tours. Students were given aguided tour booklet which developed into a Library quiz to add interest.A review of this quiz in the summer of 2006 led to a discussion about a moreefficient way of providing tours.

Observing increasing numbers of students wandering around with their MP3players led us to consider the idea of an audio tour which students coulddownload.We had heard of podcasting, indeed it had been suggested as ameans to promote the Library by a recent job applicant. However, nobody hadany idea how you produced one and there was no other School orDirectorate within Oxford Brookes that used this particular web 2.0technology at the time.The podcast idea, however, overcame one of the greatproblems with audio tours – the provision of equipment. Students came withtheir own!

We already had a script in the tour booklet and with a little re-writing andsome photographs of the Library we could potentially link a soundcommentary with images. This would be made available to students over ourLibrary web pages and have the added benefit of providing a tour for distancelearners and other potential library visitors. Most importantly we had aComputer Support Officer with a background in sound engineering and a greatdeal of enthusiasm who was willing to experiment with a new freeware pieceof software called Audacity to produce broadcast quality sound files for us.Surely it could not be that difficult to produce a sound file and add it to a webpage?

Well of course it would not have been, except that you have to do more thanadd a sound file to a web page to produce a podcast.And that was where thefun started and the stress levels began to build. In the process of building our

series of podcast episodes we have also discovered how difficult it is toproduce quality sound and video and how important it is to be aware ofpotential legal issues with copyright and obtain permission for photo and audiocontent.

The techie bits

For this project, Computer Services and the Library funded the purchase oftwo Audio Technica microphones, and an M-Audio soundcard.We used astandard laptop to record the interviews, positioning one microphone next toeach person speaking.The free software Audacity was chosen to record therecordings which appear as a graphical display which made it easy to find partsof the audio and edit them.

The next stage was to export the file from Audacity in MP3 format.This produces a smaller, compressed file.At this point there is an option to addinformation about the podcast, which will appear on the user’s MP3 player.

A simple audio tour on a webpage cannot be called a podcast if it does nothave a RSS feed attached to it. RSS or Really Simple Syndication allowsstudents to subscribe to the podcast, and software on their computers or MP3players automatically downloads any new episodes when available. So we hadto produce a RSS feed, which tells the user the name of the podcast, andwhere the episodes are stored.

For our project, the RSS feed file was created manually, with information addedabout new episodes whenever they were released. This requires technicalknowledge, although it is reasonably straightforward and can be handled bysomeone with web page design experience.There are other ways of managingRSS feeds automatically, either by publishing the podcast via a blog, or using adedicated podcast production system such as Apple Podcast Producer.

In conclusion, we found that best audio results were achieved by using externalmicrophones, and a soundcard. However this requires some technical set-upand knowledge of audio, including microphone placement, file formats andmono/stereo.An easier option is to use a standalone digital sound recorderwith a built in microphone although technical knowledge may still be requiredto transfer the file from the recorder for editing.

No holding back

Following the audio tour launch in September 2006, the relocation of theSchool of Engineering toWheatley presented us with an opportunity for an

_____________________________________________________ ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) Jnuary 20098 _____________________________________________________

16 17

episode entitled ‘What’s new in the Library?’We then thought a significant ‘pullfactor’ would be to record interviews with willing academics about howstudents could make best use of the Library and manage their learning moreeffectively. Two interviews were produced, in October 2006 and March 2007,one with an Economics lecturer and the other with a professor in the BusinessSchool. Both episodes were well received by the Business School and we alsomanaged to feature one of them on the Brookes University homepage whichwas a first for the Library.

We have found that maintaining the momentum in producing podcast episodeshas been difficult at times and only our enthusiasm for the project has kept itgoing. Problems were created when our friendly Computer Support Officerwas seconded elsewhere and there was a certain amount of scrabbling aroundfor equipment to continue the project which as yet had no budget.Thepodcast team had supplied the background research but could they handle thetechnical side?

In December 2007 the opportunity arose to promote the new self issuesystem, something which lent itself to video.We loaded Microsoft Photo Storyonto an old laptop, shut a member of the Library staff in a quiet cupboard witha voice recorder and a script and then spent many hours putting the twotogether. Flushed by this success, we were keen to develop the videocastingtechnology further, and over the summer of 2008 we filmed Jude Carroll, aleading expert in plagiarism, offering advice to students.

The pain and the glory

Every podcast episode is labour intensive and it takes time to come up withideas, contact willing participants, locate recording venues and beg or borrowequipment. Once you have a recording you still have to spend time editing itto ensure that the quality matches what our generation of students are usedto finding on the internet.

We have reviewed the use of the episodes as the project has evolved; a recentsmall scale survey showed that in terms of development, more than 60% ofstudents indicated that they would be interested in podcasts concerninginformation skills.

Therefore, we feel that we are moving in the right direction with our latestepisode on plagiarism which is short, visual and full of practical advice.

Has the gain been worth the pain? We certainly think so, and apart fromraising the Library’s profile, the project has also enabled the team to forge linkswith staff in other departments, namely AV Services, the Business School andComputer Services. Developing podcast episodes has enhanced the Librarystaff ’s own skills in IT andWeb 2.0 applications, and has encouraged colleaguesat another site Library to produce their own audio tour. On a wider front, ithas raised discussion within the University on adopting best practice inpodcasting, and dealing with branding and copyright issues.

And finally, please take a look for yourself –www.brookes.ac.uk/library/podcast/wheatley/home.html


18 19


How theWest was won:Providing repositories across the principality ofWales

Stuart Lewis, Repositories Support Project / Welsh Repository Network, AberystwythUniversity and Hannah Payne Repositories Support Project, Aberystwyth University

IntroductionWithinWales there exists a close-knit community of twelve higher educationinstitutions (HEIs).We have our own funding body, the Higher EducationFunding Council forWales (HEFCW) , and our own library and IT forums:Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum (WHELF) and Higher EducationWales Information Technology (HEWIT) .Three years ago, like the rest of theUK, the number ofWelsh HEIs with repositories was very low, and those thatexisted contained very little in the way of content. In contrast today, there isfull coverage with each institution running a growing repository. Some arematuring; some are still just starting out but with the assistance of thededicatedWelsh arm of the JISC-funded Repositories Support Project (RSP)the essential building blocks of the repositories are in place.

Background

Back in 2006, the JISC launched its Repositories and Preservation programmewith the vision ‘to establish a network of digital resources and services’ by theprogramme’s end in March 2009. At this point in time there were only twoinstitutional repositories withinWales; one at Aberystwyth University and oneat Cardiff University. Both of these were only being run as pilot services, andcontained very little content.The biggest driver for repositories at the time was as a store for electronictheses and dissertations (ETDs).There was a sense that theses would make theideal first candidates to populate an institutional repository- they were home

1Higher Education Funding Council forWales (HEFCW): http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/

2Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum (WHELF):http://whelf.ac.uk/background.shtml3Higher EducationWales Information Technology (HEWIT): http://www.hewit.ac.uk/

4The RSP is a consortium project led by SHERPA at the University of Nottingham withcore partners Aberystwyth University and UKOLN at the University of Bath. Formore information about the RSP please see: http://www.rsp.ac.uk/project/about(Retrieved Dec. 5, 2008).

5JISC. (2006). Repositories and Preservation programme. Retrieved Nov. 17, 2008, from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/repres.aspx

grown documents and would benefit from being made available online; beingreadrarely at best and taking up increasing amounts of precious shelf space.Thenational libraries had also started thinking about storing theses electronically,through the EThOS project at the British Library, and the Repository Bridgeproject at the National Library ofWales.Concurrently, Research Councils UKhad started to publish deposit mandates concerning access to their fundedresearch outputs.These mandates meant that any university that receivedresearch funding from these bodies would require a repository in order to fulfilthe terms and conditions of the grants. Preserving and providing access to thelocally generated research was to become a new function for many HEI’slibraries.

With the combination of the national libraries driving the ETD agenda; and HEIlibraries and academics realising that they had to work together in order tosatisfy the research funders; a compelling case for each institution running theirown repository was growing

Repository funding

In 2006 the JISC also issued a funding call including a set of repository projectsunder the banner of ‘Start-Up and Enhancement (SUE).’ These projects weredesigned to create new repositories or to enhance existing repositories.Theprojects worked on a matched-funding basis, where the JISC would pay part ofthe project cost, and the institution would match a similar amount with localresources.

Under theWHELF umbrella,Aberystwyth University successfully bid for moneyto buy each HEI inWales the hardware that it required to run an institutionalrepository. £4,000 per institution was given, with matched-funding being providedlocally through the staff effort required to procure, install, and run each of therepositories.

6JISC. (2007). EThOS project. Retrieved Dec. 5, 2008, from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/digitalrepositories2005/ethos.aspx.7Lewis, S. (2005). Repository Bridge:Automated Linkage of National and InstitutionalRepositories. Retrieved Dec. 5, 2008, from: http://www.inf.aber.ac.uk/bridge/.8JISC. (2007). Repositories Start-up and Enhancement projects. Retrieved Dec. 5, 2008,from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/sue.aspx.9Lewis, S. (2007).Welsh Repository Network Start-up project: Project Plan. RetrieveDec. 5, 2008, from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/wrn_project_plan_webversion.doc.

ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009_____________________________________________________

20 21


The consortia bid stated the following aim:

“to support a centrally managed hardware procurement programme designedto provide every HEI inWales with dedicated and configured repositoryhardware as a significant step towards realisation of aWelsh RepositoryNetwork (WRN)”.

This was to be achieved through close collaboration with the technical,organisational and operational support provided by theWelsh team of the JISCfunded RSP, based at Aberystwyth University.

In addition to providing the hardware required, theWRN project promised tocreate a suite of twelve case studies, documenting the hardware purchases ofeach institution.

The institutions inWales are diverse in size and type, ranging from largeresearch-led institutions to smaller liberal arts or specialist institutions.Thisrange of backgrounds would require a variety of hardware and softwaresolutions that fitted with their existing infrastructure. It was hoped thatcreating these case studies would assist other universities, with similarbackgrounds and infrastructures, to gauge what hardware they would need toestablish their own repository.

Repository procurement and installationDuring late 2007 and 2008, each of the twelveWHELF members had to decidehow to spend their hardware money.The range of choices made fell into fourbroad categories:

1. Purchase standalone hardware to run the repository:This was a commonchoice in small to medium sized institutions where each service typicallyruns on its own dedicated hardware. £4,000 was enough to buy a serverwith multiple processors and good amounts of memory and disk space.

2. Procure shared hardware that would be shared with other similarlocal projects:Two of the universities purchased hardware to sharewith their web platforms.As their web server platforms requiredsimilar web and database capabilities, they could purchase largersystems and split them between their web and repository systems.

3. Buy in to a share of a larger computing platform, typically avirtualized system:This type of system consists of a small number ofhigh powered servers, each of which run several ‘virtual’ servers.These larger servers require more initial investment that can be hardfor smaller institutions, but can offer cost and environmental savingsin the longer term.The larger institutions favoured this solution.

4. Purchase a hosted solution:Two of the smaller institutions chose to drawon current relationships and host their repositories on hardware at a largerinstitution. One university decided to use their hardware allowance toinstead buy a hosted solution from a commercial company, allowing themto also outsource the technical support and customisation of therepository.

Of the twelve repositories developed, ten use the DSpace platform, one usesthe EPrints platform, and the twelfth is hosted by BEPress using the DigitalCommons platform.

The current positionNow at the end of 2008, all twelve repositories have been established, and arein various stages of use. Some are just starting to have their first itemsdeposited, while others now contain hundreds of items and are activelymanaged and developed by dedicated repository staff.Three of the universitieshave staff with sole responsibility for the repository based in the library (orconverged Information Services department); eight are run by library staff aspart of another role; and one is run by the research office in conjunction withthe IT department.

A quarterly video-conference is held with repository staff from eachWRNinstitution to discuss their progress and to exchange ideas. In addition to this,for the past two years a dedicated repository stream has been run at theannualWHELF/ HEWIT Gregynog colloquium.This allows all staff to meettogether in person, give presentations about their repositories, and to hear akeynote speech.These meetings continue to foster the close workingrelationship that exists between library and IT staffingWales.

The RSP has been active in visiting each institution several times per year.Visits have ranged from speaking at research management boards, throughtechnical visits to install and customise repository software, to meeting withgrass roots staff to share ideas and experiences.The RSP has facilitated thesharing and supportive culture within theWelsh repository community.Repositories within theWRN have also received a welcome boost in supportfrom their institutions. One university now has a research deposit mandate tocollect all of the written university research outputs, and there are severalinstitutions (with more in the planning stages) with electronic thesis depositmandates.The institutions continue to work with the British Library and theNational Library ofWales to collectively move to storing theses electronically.


22 23


Other external drivers have helped with the population of the repositories.Several of the partners have imported their 2008 Research Assessment Exercise(RAE) data into their repositories, and many are starting to examine how therepositories can assist with the Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Much has changed within the repository world inWales in the last two years,and this rate of change will most likely continue and increase over the next two.

10 University ofWales, Bangor have been participating in the REF Pilot Exercise. Details ofthe REF and this pilot exercise can be found at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/(Retrieved Dec. 5, 2008).

Developing Open Content: The POCKET ExperienceSarah Darley (Learning Technologist)

Dave O’HareSarah Malone (Project Manager)

The Project on Open Content for Knowledge Exposition and Teaching(POCKET) is a JISC funded 18-month project due to end in March 2009 andfalls under the Repositories and Preservation Programme.The project is basedupon the belief that learners at HEI’s across England and the rest of the UKwould benefit from more stand-alone, freely accessible educational resourcesdesigned for HE study. In addition, the creation of new courses (campus-basedor distance learning) could also benefit from an enlarged pool of OpenContent HE-level resources.

The JISC LXP Student Experiences of Technology project examinedundergraduate learners’ behaviour with respect to their use of technology.It found, in each of the disciplines studied, that learners increasingly used publicwebsites and services when seeking to meet educational needs in preferenceto any facilities provided by their host institution.The project also showed thatas a result of this, learners demonstrated highly effective independent learningstrategies. Many UK educational institutions have so far done little to supportsuch strategies, opting instead to keep all the learning resources they havedeveloped in private locations accessible only by their own students.

However, this looks set to change with the recent announcement by HEFCEthat £5.7 million of funding will soon be available for pilot projects that willopen up existing quality assured educational resources from higher educationinstitutions to the world.The 12-month projects will be managed jointly by theHigher Education Academy and JISC and will fall under an Open EducationalResources Programme.

The Open University took a major step towards Open Content in 2005through its £5.65m OpenLearn initiative, developed with support from theWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation.Through OpenLearn, the OpenUniversity offers free-standing educational resources, developed from theirexisting portfolio of courses.

1 Project website: www.derby.ac.uk/pocket2 Joint Information Systems Committee: www.jisc.ac.uk3 Final report:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/lxp_project_final_report_nov_06.pdf4 Higher Education Funding Council for England: www.hefce.ac.uk5 OpenLearn: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk


24 25


These resources are made freely accessible under a Creative Commonslicense, which allows non-commercial use with attribution but restrictscommercial exploitation. OpenLearn also provides a set of tools to helpauthors publish material and to support collaborative learning communities. Itis organised in two parts: the LearningSpace, which offers free course materialfrom Open University courses; and the LabSpace, where users can upload andremix content.

POCKET aims to capitalise on the investment in OpenLearn to build a widerpool of quality assured HE-level Open Content.To achieve this it has broughttogether four partner institutions to explore the potential of Open Contentfor HEIs, both as providers of it and as users.These partners include: theUniversity of Derby, the Open University, University of Bolton and Universityof Exeter.

Project Aims

POCKET aims to build upon the OpenLearn approach by extending it to otherHEIs, specifically aiming to:

• Provide support for learners adopting independent learning strategies

• Promote effective mechanisms for converting existing course materialsinto stand-alone educational resources

• Establish how much effort is required to create fully tagged XML-formatted stand-alone Open Content from existing materials.POCKET will use XML as this format offers maximum flexibility interms of searching, transferring and outputting contents.

• Develop a module from scratch with all materials created for itdesigned as Open Content

• Add a significant resource to JorumOpen

Content Development Process

Another key aim of POCKET is the documentation of the project contentdevelopment process.This includes documenting the many steps andconsiderations involved in developing module material into open content andalso the technical aspects of ensuring that the material is compatible with theOpenLearn platform.

6 Jorum is the JISC-funded collaborative venture in UK Higher and Further Education tocollect and share learning and teaching materials, allowing their reuse and repurposingwww.jorum.ac.uk

POCKET has so far documented a range of considerations for developingmodule material into open content, including:

• Making the material relevant to a global audience (i.e. taking intoaccount any specific cultural references included in the material)

• Ensuring that the language in the material is appropriate to theopen learning environment (i.e. no references to a tutor or toformative assessment)

• Including a range of activities to help learners test their ownknowledge and to make the material as interesting and asengaging as possible

• Including some kind of feedback for all activities as learners willbe reading this material independently

• Awareness of copyright issues, especially if there are any thirdparty materials in the text

• Accessibility issues, as with any online educational material• Breaking up each module into manageable sections of

information suitable for online learning: on OpenLearnthese sections are called units

• Each unit had to be provided with a total number of study hoursand a difficulty level as a guide for learners

All materials published by POCKET are designed to be stand-alone with nodependencies on other materials. This independence is important for ensuringthey are relevant both to individual learners who discover them following asearch and to course creators who require resources that can be used in avariety of contexts.

The module material developed so far for POCKET includes:

1. Business and Sustainability module from the MSc SustainableDevelopment at the University of Exeter

2. Customer Service Skills module from the Foundation Degree inHairdressing and Salon Management at the University of Derby

3. International Economic Law module from the LL.M CommercialLaw at the University of Derby, which was written from scratchspecifically as open content

One challenge of POCKET is to demonstrate seamless interoperabilitybetween OpenLearn and other repositories.This is important because thereuse and


26 27


repurposing of materials is a key intention of materials published as OpenContent. OpenLearn allows units to be downloaded for free in a variety ofdifferent formats to re-use and to re-purpose, including:

• PDF Print Format• XML file• RSS feed• OU XML Package• IMS Content Package• IMS Common Cartridge 1.0• Plain Zip of all files• Moodle Backup

The project has been advised throughout by Centre for EducationalTechnology Interoperability and Standards (CETIS ) on standards issues.

Future PlansPOCKET is currently recruiting new partners and collaborators to work withuntil the project ends in March. POCKET hopes to continue the work it hasalready done on the project, and will make all of its materials available fromJorumOpen, as well as from OpenLearn.JorumOpen is to be available from next year and will provide a place on Jorumfor educational content whose creators and owners who are willing and areable to share their content on a global basis under the terms of a CreativeCommons licence.POCKET aims to build on the experience of the project and looks forward toworking with both JISC and Jorum to continue to push the OER agendaforward, both within the University of Derby and across the sector as whole.

For more information on POCKET please visit the project website:www.derby.ac.uk/pocket

7 CETIS: http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/

Cataloguers’ and other information professionals’ view of creatingDublin Core and MARC21 records for resource description

Resoum Kidane

IntroductionMARC (Machine Readable Catalogue Format) was developed by the Library ofCongress as a means of exchanging library catalogue records in the 1960s. Itsdevelopment also significantly contributed to the growth of library automationand to the development of online public access catalogues (OPAC) in the1970s and 1980s. However, the limitation of MARC in supporting resourcediscovery was realised with the explosive growth of digital documents in the1990s.

Evidence of this is supported by various sources. Khurshid (2002) mentionsthat the MARC format works fine for describing traditional library material,but it does not work as well for most electronic resources. Coyle (2000) alsostates that MARC was developed as a machine-readable holder for sharablebibliographic description. Ede (2001) explains that the main drawback ofMARC is due to the lack of common standardisation arising from the numberof national MARC format variants, and also the apparent competition betweenUNIMARC and MARC21.

Consequently, in the 1990s various metadata formats were developed for thedescription of digital documents on theWeb. Dublin Core is one of theseformats which were developed in 1995 at a workshop by OCLC to improvebibliographic control of web pages. Cathro (1997) adds that the Dublin Coremetadata element set was developed as a response to these needs to improveretrieval of information resources, especially on theWorldWideWeb.

Since its development the Dublin Core Metadata Element Sets and othermetadata schemes are now widely used for electronic records managementsystems. This could be due to the simple structure of Dublin Core, and thefact that it is cheap to apply by non-professional cataloguers, and also that itsrecords can be encoded in XML, html and RDF.

As a result of the above and other factor not mentioned the future of MARChas became an issue amongst information professionals, and there is apossibility that Dublin core will replace MARC for cataloguing both digital andprint documents.

Therefore to obtain information about the attitudes of cataloguers and otherinformation professionals with regard to their awareness of Dublin core as wellas their view of Dublin Core and MARC21 use a resource description in thedigital age, a brief survey was conducted in June 2007.

ALISS Quarterly 4 (1) October 2008 _____________________________________________________

28 29

_____________________________________________________ ALISS Quarterly 4 (1) October 2008

The main aim of this research is to find out different opinions within academicand research libraries on the use of Dublin Core and MARC 21 for resourcedescription in order to answer the research question

Research questionIt was assumed that Dublin Core is not widely used for cataloguing especiallyby cataloguers compared with other information professionals.This assumptionraised this question:“What is the perception of cataloguers and other information professionalsabout the future cataloguing or description of resources in the digital age?

Methodology and Data collectionThe collection of data involved use of a structured and semi-structuredquestionnaire.The questionnaire was comprised of questions mainly focusedon the type of bibliographic format in use for resources description, and use ofDublin Core and MARC21 for resource description related issues.The target of this study was cataloguers and other information professionalswho use any metadata standard elements for describing electronic resources(electronic prints).

The questionnaire was sent to selected mailing list subscribers and postedblogs assuming that they were heavily used by cataloguers, informationspecialists, researchers employed within academic, research, national andgovernmental libraries.A decision was made in choosing a sample (to include all the aboveprofessionals) from different regions who are subscribers to the followingmailing lists:AutoCat, [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ALISS, and also to potential users of thefollowing blogs ISKO UK and Catalogblog.

ResultsFifty responses were received from cataloguers and other informationprofessionals from North America, Europe,Asia and Africa. Of the 50responses received, 80% respondents sent a completed survey; and 20%respondents failed to complete the questionnaire. Because of this only 40responses were included for the data analysis of this survey. Of those 60%respondents were from Canada and USA, 32.5%, Europe, 5% China, and 2.5%South Africa

The findings of the survey are summarized in three sub- sections: respondents’background, awareness of the Dublin Core, and comparison between Dublin

Core and MARC21.There is a brief discussion about the findings of the surveyseparately in section 5.

Respondents background informationMost of the respondents 29(72.5%) were cataloguers, there were only11(27.5%) respondents from others occupation. Of those 1(2.5%) wereinformation Specialist, 3(7.5%); researchers; and 7(17.5%) Others(systemlibrarian, information consultant, director, educator etc.)

Additionally, the result of this survey found out that, 26 (65%) respondents areworking in academic libraries whereas 6(15%) respondents are working in thegovernment libraries and 8 (20%) in other places.

Hence, respondents who are cataloguers, and also those who working in theAcademic library have the highest number in this survey.This might be becauseof the research question which raises an interesting issue about the trend ofcataloguing in the digital age which will be greatly affect cataloguers especiallyfor those who working in the academic libraries.

Those libraries where the respondents working are defined by 16(41%) digitallibrary, 18(46 %) hybrid library, and 5(13 %) as others. Regarding the librarymanagement systems which are used in those libraries, 38 (95%) respondentssaid that they are using different library management systems. As can be seenfrom table 1 Aleph andVoyage library management systems are used morefrequently than other library management systems which are cited byrespondents.

Table 1. Library Management Systems

However, only 9 (28%) respondents said that their library management systemssupport Dublin Core or XML. The other 23 (72%) respondents state thattheir library management systems did not support either of them.

Awareness of the Dublin CoreAlthough 40 (100%) respondents are aware of Dublin Core, it is only used by21 (52.5%) respondents these are 11 (52%) cataloguers, 1(4.5%) informationspecialist, 3(14%) researchers and 6 (28.5 %) others. A researcher, the

Categorise library management system which is used by respondentsAleph Innopac Liberto Sersi Others Voyager Total

Cataloguer 8 6 0 3 2 7 26Information Specialist 1 0 1 0 0 0 1Researcher 1 0 0 1 2 0 4Other 2 0 1 0 2 2 7Total 12 (32%) 6 (15.5%) 1 (2.5%) 4 (10.5%) 6 (15.5%) 9 (24%) 38


30 31


cataloguers, an archivist, an educator and a director who responded gavevarious explanations for using Dublin Core according to their response thereason for using Dublin Core are summarized as follows: it is simple andcost- effective; its use to support digitisation projects; its use to allow thecreation of simple record and basic data entry such as minutes, reports, andpolicies ; its use for mapping bibliographic data (MARC21) to archivalcatalogue data (based on ISAD(G) and museum collections data(SPECTRUM-Based, its use for teaching purpose, and for creating metadatafor images.

The finding of this survey also showed that Dublin Core is not used forresource description by 19(47.7%) of respondents.As for not using DublinCore, respondents gave different explanations.To mention a few: aninformation consultant said that “customers use professional or work orientedmetadata schemes like LON Fr, or others”. A cataloguer also states thatDublin Core is too simple.

Concerning of application of the 15 basic elements of Dublin Core forcreating description of resources, 9 (36%) respondents said that they use all15 basic elements of Dublin Core, and the remaining 16 (64%) respondentssaid that they don’t use them. See fig 1

Fig 1.Applying the 15 basic elements of Dublin

To find out if they added qualified Dublin Core in addition to the basic elementfor creating description only 8 (28.5%) respondents said that Yes, and 20(71.5%) No.

As can be seen from Fig. 1, there are only 8 (28.5%) of respondents who addedQualified Dublin Core.Those respondents gave different reasons for example:Applying basic elements of DC is too simple; Qualified Dublin Core is part ofdataset for the e-prints/e-theses records; Qualified Dublin Core is necessaryto define corporate and personal creators, subject etc. On the other hand onerespondent who is a researcher gave as his reason for not using either basic orqualified, “It’s not sufficient for us to just use DCMES and Qualified DC.Weadd a few localized elements on the DC schema”

3366%%

6644%%

yyeess

nnoo

Comparison between Dublin Core and MARC21a. Use of Metadata formats for resource description

The finding of this research in fig. 2 also showed that the use of MARC21 fordescription of e-theses and digital by respondents is greater than Dublin Core.This was verified by 27 (67.5%) of respondents. Of those 10 (37%) and 12 (44%) respondents use Dublin Core and MARC21 respectively, 3 (11 %)respondents use both of them, and 2 (8%) use others.

Fig. 2 Use of Metadata formats for resource description.

Concerning encoded or embedded Dublin Core, 23 (57.5%) of respondentsdescribed that Dublin Core is encoded in XML, HTML, RDF and MARC. Figure3 below shows that 14 (61%) respondents encoded Dublin Core in XMLwhich is more than those who encoded Dublin Core in HTML 6 (26%) andRDF 3(13%).

Fig. 3 Dublin Core Metadata embedded

b. Comparisons between MARC21 and Dublin Core

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

MMAARRCC 2211 DDuubbll iinn CCoorree BBootthh OOtthheerr

ss

0%

1100%%

2200%%

3300%%

4400%%

5500%%

6600%%

7700%%

XXMMLL

HHTTMMLL

RRDDFF

Table. 3

Although 62.5% of respondents mentioned that they have problems withDublin Core to describe resources, in a separate question 24(60%)respondents expressed their view on advantages the advantage of using DublinCore compared to MARC21 for resource description, see fig 5.According totheir responses 14(58.5%) Dublin Core is easy to create records, 6 (25%)Dublin Core is retrieved by internal and external meta-search engines, 1 (4%)Dublin Core is improved access to electronic materials and 3 (12.5%) others.See fig.5

Fig.5 Advantage of using Dublin Core


33


32

Fig 4. shows that only 6 (16.6%) of respondents are applying Dublin Core forcataloguing digital and electronic theses, whereas another 30 (83.4%)respondents do not apply it.There is an assumption that those might useMARC21 instead.

Fig. 4 Applying of DC for Cataloguing

The problems encountered by respondents in applying MARC21 and DC todescribe resources are summarised in tables 2 and 3.The findings presented intable 2 show that 9 (32 %) respondents have encountered problems indescribing resources with MARC21, whereas another 19 (68 %) have noproblems.

According to one respondent who is a researcher, MARC 21 is not suitable todescribe e-resources.Another respondent who is a cataloguer also stated thatMARC21 is poor at showing the relationship between fields and data; itssubfield structure can also be restrictive.

Table.2

Regarding difficulties in describing resources with Dublin Core, only 9 (37.5 %)respondents have problems with Dublin Core, whereas 15 (62.5 %)respondents have no problems in applying DC for resource description. Onerespondent said that DC has been easy to use for describing sets of digitizeddocuments for internal.

1177%%

8833%%

YYeess

NNoo

Categories Difficulties in describing resources with MARC21

Yes No TotalCataloguer 5 15 15Information Specialist 1 0 1Reseearcher 0 1 1Other 3 3 6Total 9 19 28

Categorises Difficulties in describing resources with Dublin CoreYes No Total

Cataloguer 3 13 1Information Specialist 1 0 1Researcher 2 1 3Other 4 1 5Total 9 15 24

58.5%

25%

4%

12.5 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

EEaassyy ttoo

ccrreeaatteerreeccoorrddss

RReettrr iieevveedd

bbyy sseeaarrcchheennggiinnee

IImmpprroovviinngg

aacccceessss

OOtthheerr

ss


34 35


C. Future cataloguing

As stated earlier in the research question, the main aim of this survey was tofind the perception of cataloguers and other information professionals aboutfuture cataloguing in describing resources in the digital age. As figure 6 showedthat, 38 (95%) of respondents expressed their view about future cataloguing inthe following 11( 29 %) respondents strongly believe that MARC will neverreplace by Dublin Core, 26 (68 %) respondents said that both be used inthe future and 1 (3%) other.

Fig.6

Many cataloguers said that MARC is not replaced by Dublin Core because ofthe followings : DC is not precise; bibliographic control by DC is slippery atbest; MARC21 is going to replace seems senseless 15; MARC will not dieeasily, it has many advantages, and has been around for long time; there is toomuch political weight behind MARC for it to be replaced by DC, but MARC21quite adequate for the special materials; DC will not widely understandable andacceptable; DC far too simplistic; something will replace MARC, but not DC?DC and MARC, so perhaps neither will survive eventually; DC will replaceMARC-at least not anytime soon; there is a possibility that MARC to bereplaced by xml eg MARCXML;

DiscussionThis research found that 41% respondents defined their library as digital and46 % respondents defined their library as hybrid. This shows that a rapidgrowth of Internet resources and digital collections has led to thetransformation of libraries from being traditional to digital.As a result of thisdevelopment information professionals (cataloguers and non-cataloguers) areinvolved in digital projects to make their library collections accessible throughthe internet. However MARC, which was developed for describing printed

BBootthh,, 6688%%

NNoott rreeppllaaccee,, 2299%%

OOtthheerr,,33%%

the internet. However MARC, which was developed for describing printedmaterials, encountered problems with cataloguing electronic resources in thedigital age. These problems have raised a debate about the future ofcataloguing in the digital age.The result of this survey also showed theproblems of using MARC for cataloguing internet resources, one respondent ofthis survey said that MARC is not suitable for describing e-resources. Becauseof this some librarians have already argued that MARC is not adequate forrepresenting all the useful characteristics of digital resources and they arguethat MARC could be replaced by Dublin Core.

There is an argument among information professionals that Dublin Core ismore flexible than MARC21 in providing description for Internet resourcesIndeed, Dublin Core allows anyone to create a simple record. According toCoyle(2005) the purpose of Dublin Core was to provide a simple set of dataelements for describing documents and other objects on the internet.Guinchard (2001) adds that DC meets the need for simple resourcedescription very well. Regarding the simplicity of DC, one respondent alsoexplained that the reason for using DC is due to its simplicity which allowscreating of simple records. In addition DC is less labour intensive incomparison to MARC which is expensive to operate and labour intensivebecause it requires professional cataloguers who have knowledge ofcataloguing rules - based on AACR2.

There is also an argument that traditional catalogue code and bibliographicformats (such as AACR and MARC) are not useful for digital resources andthis has greatly contributed to the use of Dublin Core for resourcedescription. Lankford (2007) states that the lack of rule and ruleinterpretations makes the use of Dublin Core simpler and easier for localapplication. El-Sherbini (2004) also adds that creation of a DC record doesnot require the detailed knowledge of cataloguing practice.

In addition to the above, Dublin Core is more flexible than MARC, and everyelement is both optional and repeatable andno element is obligatory. Regardingthe complexity of MARC,Tennant (2002) stated that in MARC, field are codedwith a numbering scheme that cannot be read by some one unfamiliar with thecomplicated syntax.

Because of the DC being more flexible than MARC and also allowing foranyone to create simple record, its use for resources description is not onlyrestricted to web pages or other internet resources but also many digitalarchives of physical objects are starting to make use of the Dublin Core(Dutta 2003)


36 37


The advantage of DC over MARC is not only limited to the above mentionedbut it is also used by some librarians as the basis for mapping bibliographicdata.This was mentioned by one respondent of this survey.To use Dublin Corealso does not need special software or library management systems to createrecords unlike in creating a bibliographic record in MARC

Despite the above advantages of DC, Hopkinson (2003) states that the use ofMARC has increased since people began to talk about its demise. He adds thatthere are now a high number of bibliographic records around the world in theMARC format, and records can easily be transferred from one system toanother because they all use ISO 2709 format.This allows for sharing ofcatalogue records which saves a lot of time and expenditure for the library.However, a Dublin Core records could not be transferred from one system toanother and this may result in duplications of records.

MARC supporters also criticize Dublin Core for its lacks of cataloguing rules,and for not being supported by most library systems.This was confirmed fromthe survey 23 (72%) respondents state that their library management systemsdid not support Dublin Core. Regarding this Guinchard (2001) in her surveycited that lack of provision for DC input/edit in current ILS is limiting the useof DC. She adds that DC Community needs to take a lead at pushing ILS andmuseum vendors to begin integrating DC into their systems in order tosupport both MARC and DC to transfer records without loss of granularity.

As a result of the above advantages of MARC, there is an argument thatMARC wouldn’t be replaced by Dublin Core.This is supported by 29 %respondents of this survey. One of those respondents said that MARC will notdie easily because it has been around for long time and has many advantage.

Since both MARC and DC have their own strength and weakness there is anargument that it would be worthwhile to use Dublin Core in addition toMARC. (Hakala, 2003) also stated that in addition to these traditionalmaterials libraries need to use new kind of tools alongside the old ones. DublinCore metadata element set will be one of the new tools.The result of thissurvey also showed that 68% of respondents said that both MARC and DublinCore will be used in the future for cataloguing or describing resources.Thacker (2000) also stated that Dublin Core is not a replacement for thecataloguing record but libraries can also use Dublin Core to harvest orimport metadata from other systems as the starting point for theirbibliographic work.

However, Chan (2005) states that Crosswalk works relatively well whenmapping MARC fields to Dublin Core elements but not vice versa.This is dueto MARC being having a very rich content

designation scheme with 1908 field/subfields in comparing with Dublin Corewhich has only 16 elements. In the survey which was conducted by Guinchardin 2001, the most frequently mentioned challenges in implementation of DCwere those related too few elements or qualifiers. This could be a problemfor interoperability between MARC and DC

The problem of interoperability is also affirmed by Glasgow Digital Library(2002) and Clarke (1997) both of whom highlighted the possibility for datalose when data is transferred from MARC21 Metadata Schema which isencoded in ISO2709 to Dublin Core Metadata Element Sets (DCMES) Schemawhich is encoded in XML, RDF and HTML. Figure 3 of this survey also showsthat 14 (61%) respondents encoded Dublin Core in XML which is more thanthose who encoded Dublin Core in HTML 6 (26%) and RDF 3(13%).

To solve the interoperability between MARC and Dublin Core, there is anattempt to synchronize the Dublin Core and MARC records in order tofacilitate the exchange of data between various metadata formats such asDublin Core and MARC, through incorporating MARC in XML, and developingMetadata Crosswalks.

However since both MARC and Dublin Core records can be represented inXML, it seems that the problems for interoperability between MARC and DCcould be solved. As a result of this, data can be transferred between DublinCore can be encoded in XML and the MARCXML version of MARC21 whichis encoded in XML

Finally it is worthwhile mentioning that in this survey there is a trend forDublin Core to be replaced by MODS which is cited by one respondent.According to Beall (2004) Dublin Core is likely to be replaced soon by anemerging standard the Metadata Object Description Schema MODS, this isbecause of the Dublin Core weakness of having poor interoperability and non-standard data elements.

The trends of MARCXML to replace MARC and MODS to replace DublinCore can be seen from cataloguing job advertisements as most libraryemployers prefer someone who has experience and knowledge of DublínCore, EAD, MARCXML, and MODS in addition to AACR and MARC. Theprobability of MARCXML and MODS to be used in the future for resourcesdescription also can be seen from the Library of Congress for developingMARCXML for representing a complete MARC record in XML, and the use ofMODS instead of MARC for resource descriptions by COPAC [see appendix1].

3938


To conclude, the main purpose of this research to find out the perceptions ofcataloguers and other information professionals about future cataloguing ordescription of resources in the digital library.The finding of this survey affirms that 100% respondents are aware of DublinCore, and it is also used by 52.5% respondents. It is also possible that theincreasing use of xml in the library for bibliographic description will be bothMARC21 and Dublin Core superseded by MARCXML and MODS respectfullyin the future for resource descriptions.

Appendix 1Copac Full Record

Title details: Dublin core and metadata applications.Published: Emerald, 2005.

Physical desc.: p. 8-9.Subject: Dublin core

Metadata applicationsGenre: Conference publication

Language: English

View MODS XML Record

<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3"xmlns:h="http://copac.ac.uk/schemas/holdings/v1"xmlns:cpc="http://copac.ac.uk/schemas/mods-copac/v1"xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsdhttp://copac.ac.uk/schemas/mods-copac/v1http://copac.ac.uk/schemas/mods-copac/v1/mods-copac-v1.xsdhttp://copac.ac.uk/schemas/holdings/v1http://copac.ac.uk/schemas/holdings/v1/holdings-v1.xsd">

- <recordInfo><recordIdentifier source="copac">72013402052</recordIdentifier><recordContentSource>Copac</recordContentSource><recordCreationDate>20080521</recordCreationDate></recordInfo><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>

- <originInfo><dateIssued encoding="marc">2005</dateIssued></originInfo>

- <originInfo><publisher>Emerald,</publisher><dateIssued>2005.</dateIssued></originInfo>

- <titleInfo><title>Dublin core and metadata applications.</title></titleInfo>

- <subject><topic>Dublin core</topic></subject>

- <subject><topic>Metadata applications</topic></subject>

- <language><languageTerm type="text">English</languageTerm></language>

- <physicalDescription><extent>p. 8-9.</extent></physicalDescription>


4140


<genre authority="marcgt">Conference publication</genre>- <extension>- <h:localHolds><h:org type="CURL" displayName="British Library">BLI</h:org><h:objId>72013402052</h:objId>

- <h:holds>- <h:item><h:loc displayName="Document Supply Services">DSC</h:loc><h:shelfmark>5198.875000</h:shelfmark></h:item></h:holds>

- <h:holds>- <h:item><h:loc displayName="Humanities and Social Sciences, St PancrasReading Rooms">HMNTS</h:loc><h:shelfmark>LIS</h:shelfmark></h:item></h:holds>

- <h:holds>- <h:item><h:loc displayName="Humanities and Social Sciences, St PancrasReading Rooms">HMNTS</h:loc><h:shelfmark>2719.y.191</h:shelfmark></h:item></h:holds>

- <h:holds>- <h:item><h:loc displayName="Humanities and Social Sciences, St PancrasReading Rooms">HMNTS</h:loc><h:shelfmark>2719.k.2087</h:shelfmark></h:item></h:holds><h:localNote /></h:localHolds></extension></mods>

References

Beall, Jeffrey (2004) Dublin Core:An Obituaryhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2390210812.html

Chan, Lois Mai (2005) Metadata Interoperability:A study of methodologyhttp://www.white-clouds.com/iclc/cliej/c119chan.htm

Cathro,Warwick(1997)The Dublin Core: Simplicity or Complexity?http://www.nla.gov.au/staffpaper/cathro2.html

Clarke, Roger(1997) Beyond the Dublin Core: Rich Meta-Data and convenienceof use are compatible after all.

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/DublinCore.htmlCoyle, Karen (2005?) Understanding metadata and its purpose. Preprint.Published in Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (2)

Coyle, Karen (2000) Is MARC dead? A panel at the American LibraryAssociation meeting, July, 2000http://www.kcoyle.net/marcdead/marcdead.html

Dutta, Biswanath (2003) Cataloguing web documenting using Dublin Core,MARC 21.

Ede, Stuart (2001) Cataloguing in the Digital AgeLiber Quarterly 360-371

El-Sherbini, Magd.. et.al (2004) Metadata and cataloguing practices.TheElectronic Library Vol 22, No 3 238-248.

Hakala, Juha (2003?) Internet metadata and library cataloguinghttp://www.lnb.lt/events/ifla/hakala.html

Hopkinson,Alan(2003?) Tradicional communication formats: MARC is far fromdead.http://www.lnb.lt/events/ifla/hopkinson.html.

42

ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009 _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ ALISS Quarterly 4 (2) January 2009

43

Glasgow Digital Library (2002) Glasgow Digital Library draft metadatastandards policyhttp://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/documents/gdlmetadatapolicy.htm

Guinchard, Carolyn (2001) Summary of DC-libraries questionnaire responses.Metadata Librarian,The Alberta Library , University of Alberta, Canada.

Guenther, Rebecca (2000) Dublín Core and MARC 21:Their relationship anduse as metadata for electronic resources. http://www2.sub.uni-goettingen.de/metalib/guenther/sld001.htm.

Khurshid, Zahiruddin(2000) From MARC to MARC21 and beyond: somereflections on MARC and the Arabic language

Lankford, LaTisha D (2007) Guide for cataloguing legal websites: using MARCand Dublin Core.MA thesis.

Ramos de Carvalho, Joaquim (2003)Meta-information about MARC: an XML framework for validation, explanationand help systems

Tennant, Roy (2002) MARC must die .Library journal (http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/index.asp.

Thacker, Jane (2000) Standardization and libraries: Secretary of ISOTechnicalCommittee 46, Subcommittee 9 ( url)

44


january 2009

Documents