My Reflection on the One-to-One Principle and Metadata

Edward Steffen Morrow Jr.
Metadata for Digital Resources
Reading Reflection: Assignment 1
September 14, 2014

Reference to this Article
Miller, S. J., & 10th International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, DC-2010. (December 01, 2010). The one-to-one principle: Challenges in current practice. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 150-164.

A couple of things come to mind after reading the Miller article. My thoughts (opinions) center on accepted wisdom of standards, competency, and required skills. I like the 1:1 principle. It fits with what I want to see on the Internet. I hold a strong opinion that each resource should be described as a single entity, and every resource should have its own description. Each item should have a separate metadata record. Of the example in the article, I like the options 1 (page 155) and 2 (page 155 – 156). However, these options are not gold standards in my opinion. I think they are appropriate substitutions and fit best with workflows. Despite their drawbacks, I see these options as good teaching example of how-to-create metadata to describe resources.

I see a better solution driven from the examples given in the article as well as from the comments of the author. In my opinion, the major stakeholders need to convene and come to an agreement on what are best practices for resource description. This agreement should take place via open source documentation and group collaboration governed by a working task force. The goal of this task force is to create a set of standards for resource description grounded in the 1:1 principle and submit this documentation to the National Standards Institute and the International Standards Organization. This documentation should include new necessities for OAI harvesting whereby the harvesting protocols flag ambiguous metadata for correction and clarification. The OAI harvesting protocols need fixing, so they do not allow ambiguous metadata into the record. The system should have a set of checks and balances that explicitly state and identify when the 1:1 principle is violated as well as identifying the ambiguous metadata.

I also believe that the time has come to require specific training in the 1:1 principle. This training should be at the bedrock of all metadata creation documentation. The 1:1 principle should be a gold standard that all software has to meet based on NSI and ISO certification requirements. In other words, new digital resource platform software should be rooted in the 1:1 principle. Stakeholders should only use software certified by the NSI or ISO that is 1:1 certified. Old software that does not meet the 1:1 principle needs to be phased out by a selected target date. My idea may seem like a radical approach. In my opinion, the future of the Internet depends on it for reasons of integrity, quality, and efficiency.

I also feel that the individuals charged with describing resources on the Internet should be required to have the appropriate training and or certification in the 1:1 principle. Consequently, resources identified in a fashion that does not follow the 1:1 principle should be explicitly identified as violating the standard so users can make better-informed judgments about the quality of the metadata.

I like how the book clarifies that metadata is a human construct with multiple components. In addition, I understand that metadata is a tool humankind uses to make sense of the information on the Internet. I also appreciate that metadata is a structured use of language and that metadata schemes exist to impart order to the chaos everyday language imparts when used for descriptive purposes. I do like Dublin Core, but it has many limitations when it used to describe resources with multiple manifestations. In this case, more than one manifestation. I like that Dublin Core offers customization options to create new elements. However, I found the creation of new elements made me really question and ponder how an item is described. My thoughts often delved into the metaphysical realm. I found myself drawing diagrams and bubble maps to put boundaries and connections between the words I wanted to use to describe a particular resource. The act of creating a metadata element with paired values is an art as well as a science in my opinion. It is an action where ignorance can produce unintended effects.

I feel metadata creation and its study is a worthwhile topic. It is a core component of digital resources and worth exploring. The Internet needs people who are skilled in the creation of quality metadata. I look forward to learning more about metadata and its application it to digital and analog resources.