Metadata creation is part art and part science. The art is
in how one uses language to create metadata to describe something, and the
science is using the rules of a given metadata scheme. Some of the Dublin Core
metadata recommendations are quite confusing. I found the coverage,
relation, and source terms to
be most troubling. I can see it will take practical experience to develop a
better understanding of their application.
I could get lost in subject analysis. I enjoy this kind of thinking,
and I do like doing the research subject analysis involves. It is troubling
that others see this as a time sink. Nevertheless, I do understand one has to
place limits on how much time to spend on solving the problem. Pragmatically
there is a balance between subject analysis and tagging. Subject analysis will
involve a controlled vocabulary but, what about tagging. Some user might be
searching for a "red" boat in my collection of boats. I am curious
how the content of an object is analyzed into a balanced granular set of terms
that aid search and retrieval. I am not a big fan of putting my "red"
boat in only the description field and relying on it
being picked up in a query.
I envision one need what is
akin to a style guide when creating and assigning metadata to something. Hard
copy forms, or index cards with templates for a given metadata scheme could be helpful,
and these are tools I would develop for my purposes when making a collection.
Each item in the collection has a hard copy or digital template that is filled
out before the record is built in the database. This allows one to audit the
project before building it as well as facilitating the data entry phase when making
the digital collection. Lastly, I can see how training and education in
metadata is an important part of building digital collections. I would like to
see certification programs developed for metadata.
No comments:
Post a Comment