Dome Metadata Update

12 March 2012

Note: we acknowledge that worktype and genre are very similar elements. Vra.worktype is an important key element for the cataloging of visual resources in SCS.

Note: we feel that (if we continue to use qualifiers) "use" is a more accurate qualifier than "access", but also acknowledge that it is probably not worth the effort needed to change over.  We should define "access" very broadly.

Note: "use" is not an official dc qualifier.  - may be another reason to stick with "access" or just rights.

DC definition of accessRights:  Information about who can access the resource or an indication of its security status. Access Rights may include information regarding access or restrictions based on privacy, security, or other policies.
*Options:

Note:  data elements would still be separate in the management systems - but combined in the access/discovery system

Note: this is a change from what we discussed yesterday.  There is no dc.format.material. I think we talked ourselves in circles and combined dc.format.medium and vra.material. It would just be too easy for their to be a dc.format.material.  (though we could create one if we really want to)
Example: http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/handle/1951/25937?show=full
DC definition of Medium: The material or physical carrier of the resource.

Elements to be discussed at a future meeting:

3 January 2012

15 November 2011

Carl, Jolene, Mikki (preparing for Dome upgrade to DSpace 1.8)

To Do:

8 weeks to Dome upgrade

Mapping from Iris to DC Jolene
Mapping from AT to DC Mikki
Mapping from pre-existing Dome to new (legacy)
TEST in Dome test  Carl
Set up new registries in Dome Mikki

Ongoing

guidelines for adding new registries
Dublin Core application profile (incorporate mot usage notes) Mikki

Questions

1. name for "customMD"
2. will custom display fields be used in the new display (beverly)
3. Can any registry be used for browse index? (Yes)
4. XML bitstream (table for now)

7 November 2011

Next Steps:
1. Mikki will take the first pass at pulling together a DC application profile from our notes.

11 October 2011

Metadata Operations Team – Dome metadata update project overview

To date there are eleven collections in Dome with a total of 63,784 items. As each collection was mapped into Dome, ad hoc decisions were made as to which metadata fields to use, what custom qualifiers to attach, and how these fields would be used within the scope of the collection. As the number of items and diversity of collections have grown, this has led to collections that are not always compatible with one another.  An urgent need to update the metadata registry in Dome and establish sound metadata policies becomes more and more apparent with each new collection deposited in Dome.

Proposed updates to Dome metadata

Potential benefits

Next Steps

30 March 2011

Prepared by the Metadata Operations Team (Jolene de Verges, Mikki Simon Macdonald, and Rob Wolfe)

for the Metadata Coordinating Group (Nina Davis-Millis, Tom Rosko, and Deb Morley)

The MIT Libraries have set up a repository for their growing collection of digitized content. This repository, named “Dome,” is an instance of the DSpace software package. The DSpace software comes with a default registry of metadata fields that has so far been only minimally adjusted as the Libraries have begun to deposit collections in Dome.

To date there are eleven collections in Dome with a total of 53,784 items. As each collection was mapped into Dome, ad hoc decisions were made as to which metadata fields to use, what custom qualifiers to attach, and how these fields would be used within the scope of the collection. This has led to collections that are not always compatible with one another. An urgent need to improve the metadata registry in Dome and establish sound metadata policies becomes more and more apparent with each new collection deposited in Dome.

The default registry of metadata fields in Dome is inadequate for the following reasons:

Sound metadata policies are needed for the following reasons:

In order to provide better access to our digital collections, we propose updating Dome (in accordance with newly drafted DomeCore metadata policy) to meet the changing needs of our collections and those of our user community.

Proposed updates to Dome (and Dome metadata)

Potential benefits

Planning and accomplishments to-date

(see wiki https://wikis.mit.edu/confluence/display/LIBMETADATA/Dome+Metadata)

In completing this work we realized the immediate need for standard practices, definitions and usage of metadata across all collections and communities in Dome.

Next Steps